8H Aspect Grid

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful operational facts not in the schema or annotations: the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the required input set. It does not say what the grid contains (planet pairs, orbs, whether transits vs natal), so behavioral disclosure stays partial.

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?

It is short and front-loads the one distinguishing fact (the aspect angles), which is good. However, the four bracketed metadata blocks read as machine-generated scaffolding, and the endpoint URL is of little use to an agent choosing a tool, so several lines do not really earn their place in a decision-oriented description.

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 explained. But for a 14-parameter, 21%-coverage tool requiring date/time/lat/lon plus many behavioural flags, the description leaves the agent without any explanation of what the grid is, which options matter, or how it differs from sibling aspect tools. Substantially incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 21% across 14 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden and fails it. It merely repeats the four required fields that the schema already marks as required, and adds nothing about the ten optional controls (withTnp, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, the timezone vs timezoneOffset precedence) that materially change the result.

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 names the exact aspect angles (22.5/45/67.5/90/135) and places the tool in the Cosmobiology/Hamburg School group, which is genuinely distinguishing content. But it states no verb or resource: it never says it computes an 8th-harmonic aspect grid from a birth/event chart, nor which bodies are included. An agent must infer the operation entirely from the name and title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no naming of alternatives, despite many overlapping siblings (astroway_aspects_aspect_bar, astroway_render_aspect_grid, astroway_cosmobiology_dial_90, astroway_cosmobiology_midpoint_pictures). The bracket metadata tells the agent how to call it (endpoint, required fields) but never when to pick it over those neighbours.

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