Mutual Receptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. What the description does add is the cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the POST endpoint — useful operational context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. It stops short of saying anything about output shape or behavior on charts with no receptions, though an output schema exists.

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 definition, followed by compact metadata lines for group, endpoint and cost. No filler; the only mild redundancy is the group tag restating the domain already obvious from the name.

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 fully documented, so the description only needs to say what computation is performed and what it costs — both are present. An agent can call this correctly from the definition plus structured fields.

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 birth-data object documents date/time/latitude/longitude, timezone, ayanamsa, and house system in detail. The description contributes nothing about inputs, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters 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 ("Find mutual receptions between planets") and then defines the concept precisely as pairs each standing in the other's rulership/exaltation/dignity. That definition alone disambiguates it from the many other dignity tools (essential dignities, almuten, disposition chains), but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus astroway_dignities_essential_dignities, astroway_dignities_almuten, or astroway_dignities_disposition_chains. The usage context is only implied by the word "receptions"; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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