Personal Point Tree

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 usefully adds the endpoint and a billing cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which is real information an agent needs for planning, but says nothing about result shape, size, or precision limits.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded, with bracketed metadata lines that are easy to scan. However, the leading sentence duplicates the title, so the most prominent sentence carries no information beyond the name.

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 needn't be described, but for a 14-parameter cosmobiology computation with sparse schema descriptions the definition omits what distinguishes the output and how undocumented flags change it. The domain term 'personal point tree' is never defined, leaving the agent unable to judge fitness.

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 — it does not. It merely repeats the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) already marked required in the schema, and leaves the semantically important ones (withTnp, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem code letters) unexplained by both schema and description.

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?

"Tree per personal point" essentially restates the tool title (Personal Point Tree) without stating what is generated or what a 'personal point' is — and notably no parameter in the schema actually selects a personal point. The group tag (Cosmobiology / Hamburg School) hints at the domain but the agent cannot distinguish this from siblings like astroway_aspects_midpoint_trees or astroway_cosmobiology_midpoint_pictures.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the many adjacent midpoint/cosmobiology tools, and no exclusions. The only routing signal is the group label and required-parameter list, which tells the agent the input shape but not the selection criteria.

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