Skipped Steps

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 genuinely useful operational context the annotations lack: the POST endpoint and the credit cost ('10 credits (Tier 1)'), which lets an agent budget calls. It still says nothing about the shape of the result, 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?

The one-line conceptual definition is front-loaded and the metadata lines are scannable and free of padding. The description is very short, and its weakness is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 13-parameter chart tool with three enum-bearing options and defaults (houseSystem P, timezoneOffset 0), the description covers almost none of the invocation decisions an agent faces. Output is covered by the output schema, but the absence of any usage routing among the many evolutionary-astrology siblings leaves the definition incomplete.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It merely re-lists the four required fields already flagged in the schema (date, time, latitude, longitude) and adds no meaning for the uncovered controls (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId) or for how the sidereal/tropical choice changes the skipped-steps computation.

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 the astrological signature the tool evaluates ('planets squaring nodal axis') and the concept it maps to ('unfinished karma'), so an agent can guess it computes the evolutionary-astrology skipped-steps analysis from a birth chart. However, there is no verb and no explicit statement of what is produced, and nothing distinguishes it from close siblings such as astroway_evolutionary_nodal_axis_detail or astroway_evolutionary_pluto_natal_condition.

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 use this tool, when not to, or which evolutionary-astrology sibling to pick instead. Only the endpoint path and required-parameter list are given, which says nothing about selection conditions.

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