Local Space Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real non-schema context: the endpoint, the group, and a cost of 50 credits at Tier 3, which is genuinely useful for invocation planning. It does not describe response shape, but an output schema exists.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata block is scannable and waste-free. Slightly terse given the tool's 13-parameter complexity, but nothing is padding.

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?

Given 13 parameters, low schema coverage, and heavy sibling crowding, the definition is only minimally complete: it establishes what is computed and the required inputs but leaves optional-parameter choices (sidereal vs tropical, house system) unexplained. The existence of an output schema excuses missing return-value detail.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 23% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the burden and mostly fails: it lists the four required fields but says nothing about ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, timezone/timezoneOffset trade-offs, or why city/name exist. It adds little beyond restating the schema's required array.

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 a specific verb and resource plus the actual output ('azimuth and altitude of each planet'), which meaningfully separates it from sibling geo tools like astroway_geo_acg or astroway_geo_relocation that also use lat/long. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer.

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?

It states the required inputs and the birth-moment context but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing among the many geo siblings (acg, relocation, parans, zenith). An agent must infer fit from the phrase 'from a given geographic location' alone.

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