Eclipse Analysis

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that — the analytic outputs returned and, via the metadata block, the endpoint and a 100-credit Tier 4 cost, which is genuinely valuable for planning. It does not say how far ahead 'upcoming' reaches or how the year/yearsRange window bounds the result.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence that names the operation and then the three payload components, followed by compact group/endpoint/cost metadata. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 and the description names what the analysis contains, so return values need no further explanation. Combined with the cost and endpoint disclosure, an agent has nearly everything needed to call it correctly; only the time-window semantics of the eclipse search are left implicit.

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% and the nested natal object is documented in depth, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own — it never mentions the required natal birth data, the location point, or the year/yearsRange range that controls the eclipse window.

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 verb ('Analyse') and a specific resource ('impact of upcoming eclipses on a natal chart'), then enumerates the three outputs: aspects to natal planets, house activations, Saros series context. That clearly separates it from sibling eclipse tools like astroway_calendar_eclipses (eclipse listing) and astroway_stream_eclipse_incoming (event feed), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 by the word 'upcoming' — the agent must infer this is the predictive/forecast tool for eclipse effects on a person. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over astroway_calendar_eclipses, astroway_prognostics_transits, or astroway_stream_eclipse_incoming, and no prerequisites (e.g. natal birth data required) are spelled out.

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