House Cusps

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, yet the description adds real value beyond them: the auto-fallback warning for quadrant systems when |lat| > 66.5°, the endpoint, and the 10-credit cost. It does not describe error handling or output shape, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the calculation and output list, followed by supported systems and the polar-latitude warning; the bracketed group/endpoint/required/cost metadata is compact. Slightly dense and telegraphic, but no sentence is wasted.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers scope, systems, and a notable edge-case behavior. The main gap is the lack of guidance on the object's richer inputs (timezone vs. timezoneOffset, sidereal ayanamsa), though those carry their own schema descriptions.

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 low (23%) across 13 parameters, so the description should compensate more. It does list the supported house systems by name (Placidus, Koch, Regiomontanus, Campanus, Topocentric, Whole Sign, Equal, Porphyry, Morinus), which helps map to the opaque enum codes, and restates the four required parameters, but says nothing about timezone/ayanamsa/zodiacType/ayanamsaId or the city/name/cosmogram fields.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Standalone house calculation") and enumerates exactly what is returned: 12 cusps, ascendant, MC, ARMC, vertex, co-asc, polar-asc. It does not distinguish itself from related sibling tools such as astroway_vedic_kp_cusps or astroway_western_chart, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"Standalone" implies it can be called independently of a full chart, which is implicit usage guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative statement and no prerequisites beyond the bracketed [Required: date, time, latitude, longitude]. The agent must infer routing from the sibling list.

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