Essential Dignities

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 non-schema context — POST endpoint and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost — but says nothing about what the dignities output looks like or any input constraints beyond what the schema carries.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense — verb, the five dignity types, and debilities in one line. The bracketed group/endpoint/cost lines are boilerplate but short and operationally useful; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, and the cost is disclosed, so the essentials are present. However, for a natal-chart-derived calculation the description never states that birth data must be supplied nor how the result differs from the neighboring receptions and almuten tools, which is the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'body' parameter is documented in exhaustive detail (date/time formats, timezone vs timezoneOffset, houseSystem letters, custom termsData/decansData). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('essential dignities') and enumerates the five Ptolemaic categories plus debilities, so the computation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly separate itself from close siblings such as astroway_dignities_receptions, astroway_dignities_almuten, or astroway_dignities_disposition_chains, leaving an agent to infer the boundary from the term 'essential dignities' alone.

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 call this versus the other dignities tools, no prerequisite (a natal chart / birth data is implied only via the schema), and no exclusions. The '[Group: Dignities & Receptions]' tag hints at a family but gives no selection guidance.

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