Uranian TNPs

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 genuine value with the endpoint path and, importantly, a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which is not derivable from annotations; it does not, however, describe what the body returns.

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 single purpose line is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata lines are scannable and waste-free. It is appropriately sized for what it says, even if the content is thin.

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 13-parameter tool with only 23% schema coverage, the description leaves most optional parameters unexplained and gives no hint about what a TNP result contains or how the sidereal/house-system options affect it. An output schema exists, which excuses not explaining return values, but the input-side gaps remain substantial.

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 23% (ayanamsa, timezone, timezoneOffset), and the description adds nothing about the remaining optional inputs such as cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, city, or name. Listing the four required parameters just repeats what the schema already marks as required.

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?

Names a specific astronomical resource (the 8 Hamburg trans-Neptunian bodies), which is clearly distinct in content from the other astroway_cosmobiology_* siblings such as midpoint_pictures or witte_formulas. It does not, however, supply a verb or say explicitly how it relates to those siblings, so an agent must infer that it returns TNP positions rather than the whole cosmobiology output.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to any sibling tool. The metadata lines only restate prerequisites (date/time/lat/long) and price, which is not the same as telling an agent when this tool is the right choice.

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