Zenith

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds useful operational context: cost of 50 credits (Tier 3), the POST endpoint, and the four required inputs. It does not describe what the zenith output contains or reconcile the referenced but absent 'planet' input, so it adds moderate value.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and the metadata brackets are compact. Efficient and readable, though the bracket block mixes documentation with what could be structured metadata.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, the description is thin: it omits explanation of most optional parameters and does not resolve the missing 'planet' input. The presence of an output schema relieves return-value explanation, but the input-side and usage gaps leave the agent under-informed.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It mentions only the four required params (date, time, latitude, longitude) and omits explanation of key optional ones (houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsa, cosmogram, name/city). Critically, the 'planet' the tool claims to use is not a parameter at all, which is a semantic gap.

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+resource: 'find all geographic locations where a given planet is exactly at the zenith.' An agent understands the astronomic operation. However, it references 'a given planet' that has no corresponding parameter in the schema, and it does not distinguish itself from geo siblings like astroway_geo_acg, astroway_geo_local_space, or astroway_geo_parans.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many other geo tools (local space, parans, relocation, solar ACG). The metadata lines give endpoint/cost/required inputs but nothing about selection criteria or prerequisites.

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