Aspect Matrix

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it uses 'per-pair astro.com orb matrix' and returns specific fields (type, exactAngle, orb, isApplying). It does not contradict annotations. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus group/cost and an example. It is highly concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every part adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool returns an aspect list and the description explicitly lists the returned fields. There is no output schema, so the description adequately covers the return format. It also states what it excludes (planet positions, houses, midpoints). The example request body provides a complete usage pattern. Some minor gaps like default parameter values are covered by the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description includes an example request body with values for date, time, timezoneOffset, etc., which aids understanding but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with 'Standalone aspect calculation — full inter-planetary aspect list with type / exactAngle / orb / isApplying,' clearly stating the tool's specific output. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tool 'chart' by noting it provides the same aspect calculation without planet positions/houses/midpoints overhead, effectively distinguishing its purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description notes 'Same calcAspects() as /chart but without planet positions / houses / midpoints overhead,' guiding the agent to use this tool when only aspects are needed. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context and sibling tools provide sufficient inference. The group and cost annotation also aid usage decisions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.