Lefeldt Extensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the POST endpoint and the 10-credit Tier 1 pricing. It says nothing about computation depth or output characteristics, though an output schema exists to carry that.

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 technique name, and every bracketed line carries some fact (group, endpoint, required inputs, cost). However the brackets read as metadata scaffolding rather than explanatory prose, so structure is orderly but information density is low.

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 14-parameter calculation tool with 21% schema coverage, the description leaves most inputs unexplained and offers no usage guidance. The existing output schema excuses it from describing return values, and cost/endpoint are covered, but that is not enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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 must compensate, and it does not. It restates the four required fields already declared in schema.required and adds no meaning for the domain-relevant options (withTnp, cosmogram, houseSystem, ayanamsa, zodiacType).

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 phrase 'Lefeldt-Brummund 22.5° subdivisions' names a specific cosmobiology technique, so a domain-aware agent can infer it computes 22.5° dial subdivisions for a chart. But there is no verb saying what it does (compute/return), and nothing distinguishes it from the many cosmobiology siblings such as astroway_cosmobiology_dial_90, astroway_cosmobiology_witte_formulas, or astroway_cosmobiology_uranian_tnps.

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 description supplies endpoint, required inputs, and cost, but never says when this technique should be used instead of the sibling cosmobiology tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing hints, which is a real gap given roughly a dozen cosmobiology siblings.

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