Witte Formulas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context in the form of a credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and an explicit required-parameter list. It does not disclose return shape, computation behavior, or error conditions, but with annotations present a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is compact and front-loads the core formula and group, with bracketed metadata lines that are easy to scan. There is no filler, though the extreme brevity is more under-specification than true conciseness. It earns its space structurally and is not bloated.

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?

This is a complex 14-parameter tool with low schema coverage, and the description omits almost all parameter semantics and selection guidance. The presence of an output schema relieves the need to explain return values, but an agent still cannot determine what many of the inputs (withTnp, cosmogram, houseSystem, zodiacType) do or when to use this endpoint versus its many cosmobiology siblings.

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%, and 14 parameters are present, so the description needs to compensate but does not. It only repeats the four required fields already declared in the schema; it says nothing about optional parameters such as city, name, withTnp, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, or ayanamsaId, leaving half the inputs undocumented in both places.

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 a specific technique ('Witte planetary pictures A+B−C=D') and group (Cosmobiology / Hamburg School), which is somewhat informative. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it does not distinguish this from sibling cosmobiology tools such as astroway_cosmobiology_midpoint_pictures or astroway_cosmobiology_uranian_tnps. An agent could not confidently tell what computation is performed or why to pick this over its siblings.

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, no named alternatives, and no conditions for selecting this tool over the other cosmobiology endpoints. The bracket lines state requirements and cost, but do not tell the agent in which analytical context Witte formulas are appropriate.

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