Gauquelin Sectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the POST endpoint and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which matters for budgeting. It says nothing about response shape, but an output schema exists.

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 gives the core behavior, followed by a compact labeled metadata block for group, endpoint, required params, and cost. No wasted prose, though the bracketed block is boilerplate rather than explanation.

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?

Safety annotations and an output schema mean the description doesn't need to explain return values, and the cost and required-parameter facts are useful. However, for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, the description leaves the optional coordinate/timezone/zodiac controls unexplained, which is the main gap.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 23% schema description coverage, the description carries a real burden but only names the four required ones (date, time, latitude, longitude). The nine optional parameters — timezone, timezoneOffset, ayanamsa, ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, city, name — are not explained in the description, though a few have schema text.

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, 'Calculate Gauquelin sector positions (1–36) for all planets,' and adds the output meaning ('power zone'). It is distinguishable from siblings like astroway_geo_parans or astroway_geo_acg because no other tool computes Gauquelin sectors, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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 lists required inputs and cost but gives no 'use this when' context, no prerequisites (it needs a full birth moment plus coordinates, not just a date), and no alternative tools. An agent must infer from the name alone whether Gauquelin sectors or a related geo/parans tool is the right pick.

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