Almuten Figuris

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 genuinely useful operational context absent from the annotations: endpoint, group membership, and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which matters for tool selection. It does not disclose, however, what 'key chart positions' are included in the scoring or whether custom termsData/decansData change the result.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence defines the tool, followed by three compact metadata lines. Nothing is redundant and the core concept arrives first.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the cost/endpoint lines round it out. The remaining gap is methodological: which chart positions feed the score and how custom terms/decans data influences it are unstated, which matters for a calculation tool whose whole value is the ranking.

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?

The top-level schema has a single 'body' parameter, and its nested schema is fully described (100% coverage) including timezone, ayanamsa and house-system semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but it also gives no hint that the optional custom terms/decans tables can alter the almuten calculation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Calculate') and a named astrological resource ('Almuten Figuris'), then explains what that means operationally: the planet with the highest essential dignity score across key chart positions. An agent can form a correct mental model of the output. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as astroway_dignities_essential_dignities or astroway_dignities_hyleg, which also deal with planetary dignity.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus the other dignity tools, no prerequisites (e.g. requires full birth data with time and place), and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the one-line concept definition.

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