Fixed Stars

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond that: the default of 36 classic stars, the orb default of 1 with a hard maximum of 5, that results are ordered closest first, and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost. Endpoint and grouping metadata are also supplied.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense, and the bracketed metadata block is compact and scannable. Some space is effectively wasted on `stars` and `orb`, which the schema does not accept, but there is no padding or repetition.

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 no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, a 13-parameter tool at 23% schema coverage is under-described, and the description names two parameters that cannot be sent, leaving the agent unclear on how to select stars or set an orb.

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?

It documents `stars` and `orb`, but neither parameter exists in the schema — that is actively misleading for an agent trying to shape a call. With schema coverage at 23% across 13 parameters, the description should also clarify city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem and ayanamsaId, and it does none of that. Only the required date/time/latitude/longitude echo matches the schema.

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: fixed-star positions at the birth moment plus natal-planet conjunctions with them. An agent understands exactly what is computed. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling astroway_aspects_fixed_stars_catalog, which is the main nearby tool an agent could confuse it with.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite a catalog sibling and astroway_geo_parans_star existing. The phrase 'at the birth moment' implies natal-chart use, but the agent must infer that and has no steering toward or away from the catalog tool.

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