Local Space Influence Zone

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 genuinely useful operational context in the cost line ('50 credits (Tier 3)') and the required-parameter line, but says nothing about the geographic/cartographic constraints of the computation (coordinate ranges, units) beyond that.

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?

Front-loaded definition sentence followed by a compact metadata block (group, endpoint, required, cost). Every line carries information; nothing is padded or buried.

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 required, and cost/endpoint/required fields are supplied. However, two optional parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no indication of coordinate conventions or units, leaving an agent unable to call the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the three required field names from the schema and adds no meaning: azimuth is never explained (azimuth of what, in what convention), and halfAngle and maxDistDeg are not mentioned at all despite directly affecting the output lines. This is a substantial gap for a 5-parameter computation tool.

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?

A specific verb ('Calculate') plus a specific resource ('local space influence zone lines') and a clarifying gloss ('lines on the map showing planet directions from that location'). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling astroway_geo_local_space by describing a line-based map product, but never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

The phrase 'for a chart relocated to a specific city' hints at the use case, and the Required line tells the agent what must be supplied, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing against the many other astro-geography tools (geo_acg, geo_relocation, geo_zenith, geo_local_space).

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