A*C*G Life Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: this is static taxonomy data, free of credit cost, and cacheable. That is useful but stops short of saying whether results ever change or how large the payload is.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the taxonomy statement first and operational metadata bracketed after. The dangling 'two endpoints below' reference is wasted text in this context.

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?

With an output schema present and zero inputs, the description need not document return values. It is nearly complete for a static lookup tool, falling short only in failing to identify the endpoints it says it feeds.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of weight and polarity is correctly about the response shape, not inputs.

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?

States a specific resource: a reference taxonomy of 19 life areas, each mapping planet-and-angle lines to a weight and polarity. That is far more informative than the title alone, though it does not name the geo siblings it relates to (astroway_geo_acg, astroway_geo_acg_by_category).

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?

'Drives the two endpoints below' implies this is a lookup table to consult before a category-based call, but in a standalone definition the referent 'the two endpoints below' is unnamed and unresolvable. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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