Djamaspa (DEPRECATED: RED quality, sunset 2027-06-15)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), a hard removal date tied to the /v1 stability policy, and a data-quality caveat ('RED quality… no canonical reference') that warns the results are unreliable. It doesn't discuss pagination or error behavior, but those are minor here.

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 deprecation warning is stated three times (title, opening paragraph, and the closing ⚠️ line), which is redundant given it is a single fact. The actual purpose sentence is buried after the deprecation prose, and the bracketed metadata block duplicates schema/annotation data.

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?

For a one-parameter, output-schema-backed calculation endpoint, the description supplies the important operational facts: cost, deprecation timeline, required input, and a reliability warning. The main omission is that it never says what the returned 'planetary positions' consist of or their frame, though the presence of an output schema lowers that concern.

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 0% on the single 'date' parameter, so the description carries some burden. It confirms the parameter is required ('[Required: date]'), but says nothing about the expected format or timezone; the YYYY-MM-DD shape is only inferable from the schema's regex pattern, not the prose.

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 final sentence gives a concrete verb+resource: 'Calculate Djamaspa planetary positions for date.' That is specific enough to know the operation. However, 'Djamaspa' is opaque jargon and the parenthetical ('oral Zoroastrian tradition, scattered manuscripts') describes source reliability, not what the output contains, and no sibling is named to distinguish it from astroway_western_planets or other esoteric tools.

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?

It explicitly says when NOT to use it ('⚠️ DEPRECATED — Avoid using' and a sunset date) and points to a migration path ('broader /reference endpoints or remove the dependency'). The gap is that the alternative is described generically rather than as a named sibling tool, so an agent still has to search for a replacement.

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