Sensitive Points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts — the POST endpoint and a 10-credit (Tier 1) cost — but does not disclose result shape, computation details, or what 'withTnp' does at runtime.

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 short and front-loaded, with the identifying sentence first and bracketed metadata after. No wasted prose, though the metadata block is boilerplate rather than substantive content.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), the description leaves an agent with 14 parameters at 21% schema coverage and no explanation of the domain term or optional switches. For a tool this configurable, the definition is insufficient 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 merely restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) already in the schema. Key optional parameters such as withTnp, cosmogram, zodiacType, and houseSystem receive no explanation anywhere.

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 "Ebertin's personal points midpoint hits" names a specific technique, which is better than a tautology, but it is jargon-heavy and never says what a 'sensitive point' is or what the tool returns. It also fails to distinguish itself from closely related siblings like astroway_cosmobiology_personal_point_tree or astroway_aspects_midpoints.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other cosmobiology/aspect midpoint tools, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hints are the required-parameter list and credit cost, which do not indicate usage conditions.

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