Bonifications/Maltreatments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful operational context (endpoint, required inputs, 10-credit Tier 1 cost) but never explains what the nine categories of bonification/maltreatment actually report.

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 metadata block is front-loaded and scannable, with cost and required inputs immediately visible. The single content sentence is thin but no text is wasted.

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?

Tallied at 4: the presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, the description leaves the sidereal/house-system options undocumented, which is a real 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?

Schema description coverage is only 23% across 13 parameters, so compensation is needed. The description names the four required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the consequential optional parameters (zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsa/ayanamsaId) that materially change output.

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 'Planet conditions per Valens: 9 categories', which conveys the resource (planetary condition assessment) and a doctrinal source, but the tool's identity only becomes clear by reading the name/title ('Bonifications/Maltreatments'). It does not distinguish this from nearby Hellenistic siblings such as joys_of_planets, sect_strength, or triplicity_rulers.

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 block lists required parameters and cost but gives no guidance on when to choose this over other Hellenistic condition tools. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

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