Astrocartography (A*C*G)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations cannot: the cost (50 credits, Tier 3), the endpoint, and the required inputs. It says nothing about output shape or the meaning of the many optional switches, but the output schema exists to carry return format.

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 definition sentence plus a compact bracketed metadata block; nothing is padded. The credit cost and required-parameter line are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

This is a 13-parameter calculation tool with low schema coverage and many non-obvious optional modifiers, yet the description never explains what those switches change or how they affect the resulting lines. Given how many sibling ACG tools exist, the definition is under-built for the complexity.

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 needed to compensate and does not. It merely restates the four required parameters, leaving ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, city and name with no explanation anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Calculate A*C*G lines for all planets') and even defines the astronomy ('geodetic map lines where each planet was on an angle at birth'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish this from nearby siblings such as astroway_geo_solar_acg or astroway_geo_acg_by_category, so an agent must infer the split.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. With a dozen ACG-adjacent siblings (acg_zones, acg_line_report, acg_best_places, solar_acg, parans), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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