Founding-Day Chart

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the cost line (10 credits, Tier 1), the POST endpoint, and the fact that a themed summary accompanies the three angles. Those are genuinely useful call-planning facts beyond the annotations, though timezone/ayanamsa resolution behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the bracketed group/endpoint/required/cost lines are compact and scannable. No filler, though 'Treat ... as a chart' is slightly oblique phrasing that could be tightened into a direct verb.

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 described, and the cost/required lines round out the call mechanics. But for a 13-parameter endpoint, the description leaves the house-system and sidereal-mode choices completely unaddressed, which is the main thing an agent would need beyond the schema.

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; the description names the four required ones (date, time, latitude, longitude) but says nothing about the meaningful optional knobs — zodiacType, houseSystem (25 opaque single-letter codes with no documentation anywhere), cosmogram, ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId. It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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: it evaluates a proposed founding date as a chart and names the returned artifacts (sun/moon/ASC + theme). That is clearly distinct from a business electional/date-selection tool, though 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?

The phrase 'treat the proposed founding date as a chart' implies you already have a candidate date in hand, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the nearest alternatives (e.g. astroway_business_electional_day, astroway_vedic_muhurat_business_start) for picking a date in the first place.

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