A*C*G by Life Category

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly spends its budget elsewhere: it discloses that results are weight-ranked, that proximity ranking only activates when a point is supplied, that interpretation text comes back in 11 languages, and that the call costs 50 credits at Tier 3. Only the response size/pagination behavior is left unspecified.

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?

Two content sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the ranking rule, followed by compact group/endpoint/cost metadata that an agent genuinely needs for planning. Every line earns its place; only the '11 languages' count is arguably redundant with the language enum.

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-value explanation is not owed, and the input schema spells out birth data and the category enum. The description supplies the decision-relevant extras (category scoping, optional proximity point, cost, language coverage), leaving only ordering ties and result volume unaddressed.

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 nested body description is already extensive, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning the schema does not: the optional point changes the sort order to proximity-based, and category selects the life area being ranked. It does not explain radiusDeg or polarity, but those are documented in the schema.

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 resource precisely (A*C*G lines for a single life category) and states the two ranking rules, which distinguishes it from the generic astroway_geo_acg and from astroway_geo_acg_best_places. It never names a sibling explicitly, but 'one area of life' versus whole-chart line sets is enough for an agent to pick correctly.

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: use it when you want lines filtered to a category, add a point to get proximity ordering. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. why choose this over astroway_geo_acg or astroway_geo_acg_zones) and no prerequisites stated, though the optional point semantics hint at the intended workflow.

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