Disposition Chains

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read against a closed world, so safety behavior needs no restatement. The description does add genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: a 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the POST endpoint. It says nothing, though, about response behavior or what the calculation assumes about the chart input.

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 functional sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, and the bracketed metadata lines are compact structured context rather than prose padding. Slightly reduced because the cost/endpoint block occupies as much space as the actual definition.

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 an output schema present and a fully documented input schema, the description need not explain return values. But for a calculation whose result depends heavily on the rulership/detriment and classical/modern switches, the description never addresses those choices or the existence of a sibling layout tool, leaving routing ambiguity.

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 100% and the single body parameter carries an extensive nested description covering birth data, timezone rules, ayanamsa, house system letters, and the mode/rulerMode pair. The tool description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies; notably it does not explain rulership versus detriment or classical versus modern rulers.

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?

A precise verb ("Calculate") plus a specific resource ("planetary disposition chains"), with a clarifying gloss explaining the recursion ending at the final dispositor. It does not, however, distinguish this from adjacent siblings such as astroway_dignities_disposition_chains_layout, astroway_dignities_receptions, or astroway_dignities_essential_dignities, which a caller must infer from the names.

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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus the layout variant or other dignity tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The only scoping information offered is the group tag and endpoint, which do not guide selection.

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