Parans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by listing the endpoint, the 50-credit Tier 3 cost, and the output content ('every planet-to-planet crossing with its coordinates').

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 description is front-loaded into two sentences that explain the concept and the return content, followed by compact bracketed metadata. The bracketed required-parameter list duplicates the schema and is the only waste, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 the description need not explain return values in detail, and it does state the key output ('every planet-to-planet crossing with its coordinates'). However, for a 13-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description leaves optional astrological and timezone parameters unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 13 parameters with only 23% description coverage, and the description only repeats the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema already marks required. It adds no meaning for optional parameters such as ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone, timezoneOffset, city, name, or cosmogram.

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 defines parans as the crossing points of two A*C*G lines where two planets were simultaneously angular, and states that it returns every planet-to-planet crossing with coordinates. This is a specific resource and return description, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as astroway_geo_parans_star or astroway_geo_acg.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like astroway_geo_acg, astroway_geo_solar_acg, or astroway_geo_parans_star. The definition says what parans are but leaves the selection context entirely to inference.

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