Specific Placement Interpretation

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description contributes real additional context: the endpoint path and a concrete cost of 100 credits (Tier 4), which matters for a metered call. It says nothing about latency, whether the interpretation is cached, or why idempotentHint is false despite an identical request.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating what it does and its scope, followed by three compact bracketed metadata lines. Nothing is redundant, though the group/endpoint lines are operational metadata rather than agent-facing guidance.

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?

An output schema exists so return format needs no explanation, and cost is disclosed. However, the description never clarifies that sign and house are derived from the required birth data rather than passed directly, which is the one thing an agent could plausibly get wrong before calling.

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 description coverage is 100% and the nested body schema documents birth data, ayanamsa, timezone and houseSystem in detail. The description adds only the notion that planet (plus the derived sign and house from birth data) is the interpretation target – the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("AI interpretation of a specific planet+sign+house combination") and adds a scoping qualifier ("focused on the placement only"). That qualifier implicitly separates it from astroway_ai_interpret_natal, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by "concise, focused on the placement only" – the agent can infer this is the narrow, single-placement variant. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to the natal/element/transit interpretation alternatives.

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