Pluto Natal Condition

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 useful non-schema context: the POST endpoint and a concrete cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which matters for tool selection. It says nothing about errors, precision limits, or what 'hard aspects' includes (orb settings), so it stays at a 3.

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?

Information is front-loaded in bracketed tags with zero filler and fast scanning for required fields and cost. The cryptic 'JWG' prefix is the one piece of text that does not clearly earn its place given it is never expanded.

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, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. But a 13-parameter calculation tool with undocumented sidereal/house-system options and no statement of what the interpretation means is under-described; an agent cannot tell whether ayanamsa or zodiacType matters for a 'JWG' Pluto reading.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. '[Required: date, time, latitude, longitude]' merely restates the schema's required array, and the nine optional parameters (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone, timezoneOffset, cosmogram, name, city) get no mention at all.

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 the specific chart factor (Pluto) and the four outputs produced: sign, house, ruler, and hard aspects. However, it opens with the unexplained jargon 'JWG' and never uses a verb to state what the tool actually does (compute, return, interpret). An agent can infer the resource but must guess at the operation.

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 use this versus siblings such as astroway_evolutionary_nodal_axis_detail, astroway_evolutionary_skipped_steps, or astroway_western_chart. The '[Group: Evolutionary Astrology]' tag locates it in a family but does not say what question it answers or when to prefer it.

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