Disposition Chains Layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the POST endpoint and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which lets an agent reason about spend before calling.

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 front-loaded sentence carries the purpose, followed by compact bracketed metadata lines. No filler; the only slightly wasteful element is the endpoint URL, which is only marginally actionable for an agent.

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?

Output schema exists and the input schema is richly documented, so the description needn't explain returns. The remaining gap is routing context: nothing clarifies how the computed layout coordinates relate to the plain disposition-chains sibling or what coordinate space/dimensions to expect, which matters for a visualization tool.

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 nested body schema thoroughly documents birth data, ayanamsa, timezone, house system, plus the mode (rulership/detriment) and rulerMode (classical/modern) fields. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Return disposition chains') and adds the differentiator 'with computed x/y layout coordinates for graph visualization', which separates it from the plain chains endpoint. It does not, however, name the sibling astroway_dignities_disposition_chains that produces the same data without layout.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for graph visualization' — an agent can infer this is the variant to call when coordinates are needed for rendering. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to the non-layout sibling as the alternative for data-only needs.

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