Joys of Planets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context not in structured fields: a 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the mandatory input set. It says nothing about error behavior, what a Tierson/POST body returns, or whether the endpoint is deterministic across ayanamsa choices. Note the POST endpoint paired with readOnlyHint is unusual but not contradictory for a compute endpoint.

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 with the purpose in the first clause, followed by compact bracketed metadata. Nothing is padded or redundant. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 values legitimately need no explanation. However, for a 13-parameter astrological computation the description leaves the agent without any guidance on zodiac/sidereal selection, house system choice, or when this Hellenistic technique is the right pick among dozens of Hellenistic siblings. The required-param and cost lines are the only operational content.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 23% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate and does not. It merely repeats the four required fields already listed in the schema's `required` array and says nothing about the nine optional parameters (zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsa/ayanamsaId, cosmogram, timezone vs. timezoneOffset precedence, city/name labeling), several of which materially change the answer.

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?

Names a specific astrological resource (classical planetary joys) and glosses it with an example mapping ("Sun-Leo-9th"), which tells an agent this returns planet-to-sign/house joy correspondences. The group tag ("Hellenistic: Brennan tradition") differentiates it from the Greenbaum/Schmidt/Hand Hellenistic siblings. It stops short of stating what the response contains, but the resource is identifiable.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g. vs. bonifications_maltreatments or triplicity_rulers). The bracket block lists required params and cost, but neither constitutes usage guidance.

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