Expansion Timing

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive safety. The description adds useful operational context: the endpoint, required field set, and a 10-credit cost tier, which matters for an agent budgeting calls. It does not describe the nature or shape of the guidance returned, but with annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 guidance is a single front-loaded sentence followed by structured metadata lines (group, endpoint, required, cost), which is efficient. The metadata block is repetitive of schema/annotation fields but not wasteful in a damaging way.

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?

For a 13-parameter domain-specific tool with low schema description coverage, the description is very thin. The output schema excuses explaining return values, and annotations cover safety, but the description does nothing to explain the business-expansion concept, how inputs map to guidance, or the role of the optional astrological parameters.

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 23% across 13 parameters, so the schema leaves most fields undocumented. The description only repeats the four required parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude) already declared in the schema's required list, adding no meaning for the nine optional parameters such as ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, or cosmogram.

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 gives a resource ('expansion guidance') and distinguishes scope from transits ('high-level... pair with /transits for actual windows'), but 'High-level expansion guidance' is vague about what the tool actually computes or returns. It doesn't clearly state whether it produces a chart-based reading or timing windows, leaving the core purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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?

It provides an implicit routing hint — use /transits for actual windows and this tool for high-level guidance — which is helpful. However, there is no explicit statement of when this tool should be chosen, what prerequisites exist (e.g. needs a business chart), or when not to use it.

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