Moon Aspects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful details (applying vs separating aspects, credits cost, endpoint), but "within a date range" is slightly at odds with a schema that only accepts year and month, so granularity is unclear.

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 functional sentence is front-loaded and the remaining lines are compact metadata (group, endpoint, required params, cost). No filler, though the repeated "Required" line duplicates the schema.

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 cost/endpoint are disclosed. What remains missing is disambiguation from the near-identical horary moon-aspects sibling and clarity on how year+month defines the range.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for year and month. It only restates "Required: year, month" and implies a range, without clarifying that the result is scoped to a single month or what the boundaries mean.

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 ("Calculate") and resource ("all aspects the Moon makes") plus a qualifier (applying and separating). However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as astroway_horary_moon_aspects or astroway_calendar_aspects, leaving overlap unresolved.

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?

"Useful for electional and horary work" implies a use context but names no alternative and gives no when-not conditions. With astroway_horary_moon_aspects present as a sibling, an agent is left to guess which one to call.

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