Relocation Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile carries no burden. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the POST /v1/relocation endpoint and a concrete 50-credit (Tier 3) cost, plus a short note on what is returned (new houses, planet house positions). It doesn't cover accuracy caveats such as city not being geocoded or the pre-1970 timezone warning that the schema raises.

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 front-loaded sentences that each carry content, followed by short bracketed metadata for group, endpoint and cost. No filler; the metadata block is useful but adds a slight tabular feel.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the schema already documents every parameter at high coverage. The description supplies the remaining non-structural facts an agent needs (what the operation does, its cost) and only omits routing guidance versus sibling relocation/ACG tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested natal/target objects are documented in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the natal-vs-target split semantically ('same birth moment, different lat/lng') but never states that the request body is a wrapper carrying both a full birth record and a target latitude/longitude, which is the one non-obvious structural fact.

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 and resource (recalculate natal chart for a new geographic location) and disambiguates the mechanism precisely: same birth moment, different lat/lng. It doesn't distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as astroway_reports_relocation or the geo_acg family, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 mechanics described – an agent can infer it is for relocation/astrocartography-style house recalculations rather than for natal charts or ACG line work. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use X instead' statement, and no prerequisites or exclusions despite several plausible sibling substitutes.

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