Antiscia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: the POST endpoint and a cost of 20 credits at Tier 2, which an agent budgeting calls will care about. It says nothing about how the natal chart is derived from the birth data or about result size, so it stays at a 3.

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 dense sentence followed by four compact metadata lines, with the core definition front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the metadata lines are formatted for a human reader rather than an agent and the 'Required' line is redundant with the schema.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations plus cost disclosure cover safety and budget. However, for a 13-parameter tool at 23% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about zodiac/sidereal and house-system choices that materially change the result.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only restates that date, time, latitude and longitude are required, which the schema's required array already states. Undocumented or thinly documented knobs like zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsa/ayanamsaId, cosmogram, timezone vs timezoneOffset, city and name get no explanation of when or why to supply them.

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 names a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('antiscia'), and even defines the concept parenthetically as mirror points along the Cancer/Capricorn axis, plus contra-antiscia and their aspects to natal planets. That scope is concrete and richer than the bare name. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the very close siblings astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_antiscia_hellenistic and astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_contra_antiscia, which cover overlapping ground.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the '[Group: Aspects & Points]' tag and 'Required' line are the only structural hints. Given that several sibling tools compute antiscia or contra-antiscia under different schools, the absence of any routing language is a real gap.

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