A*C*G Line Report

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: that the response includes interpretation text per planet-angle pair, that curves are fragmented into several disjoint segments and all are returned, and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost.

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 tight sentences front-load the payload description, followed by compact group/endpoint/cost metadata. Slight cost in clarity from the elliptical opener 'One line in full', but nothing is wasted or repeated.

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?

The tool has a large nested body schema, an output schema, and full annotations, so the description need not restate parameter or return details. What is missing is placement: with over a dozen ACG/geo siblings, the definition never explains this endpoint's role in that family, which is the key gap for correct selection.

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 100%, with the nested birth-data fields, timezone offset semantics, ayanamsa, and house-system letters all documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the planet-and-angle pairing requirement, adding no format or defaulting guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening phrase 'One line in full' plus the enumeration of geometry, weighted/polarized life areas, and interpretation text makes clear this returns the full detail for a single planet-and-angle ACG line. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the obvious siblings (astroway_geo_acg, astroway_geo_acg_best_places, astroway_geo_acg_zones), so an agent must infer that this is the per-line detail endpoint.

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 choose this over the many other ACG tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only conditional content is an output note about disjoint rising/setting segments, which does not help the agent decide whether to call this tool.

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