Dream Symbols by Element

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note: the endpoint is not in the public credit manifest, so cost is plan-dependent and unknown up front — relevant for an agent budgeting calls. It says nothing about result size, ordering within an element, or pagination.

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 waste-free, and the bracketed metadata lines are terse. The group/endpoint/required lines are largely redundant with structured fields, but the cost caveat earns its place, so only minor trimming is warranted.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema defined elsewhere, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: the resource, the organizing dimension, the required argument, and a cost caveat. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists.

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 parameter is an enum with its own description ('Elemental grouping'). The description merely repeats the five enum values, which the schema already constrains, so it adds no semantics beyond structured data. 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?

The description states a specific resource and its organizing dimension: dream symbols indexed by element, with the five valid elements listed. It is clear what the tool returns, but it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from sibling dream tools such as astroway_esoteric_dreams_decode or astroway_esoteric_dreams_symbol_keyword, which an agent would have to reason about unaided.

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 only implied by the phrase 'indexed by element' — an agent can infer this is a browse/lookup path when the element is known. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the keyword or decode siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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