15 Hermetic Lots

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is the endpoint and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, which is useful budget context not present elsewhere. It stops there — no mention of how the lots are calculated or whether sect/lot formula variants apply.

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 there is no filler prose, but three of the four lines are bracketed boilerplate tags (group, endpoint, required, cost) rather than substantive description.

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 chart calculation with low schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without the configuration semantics or any hint of what the 15 lots payload contains. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input side remains under-specified.

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?

13 parameters with only 23% schema description coverage, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It repeats the four required fields (already marked required in the schema) and says nothing about ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId duality, zodiacType, houseSystem, or what `cosmogram` does here.

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 resource ('All 15 Hermetic Lots') and pins the tradition with 'per Brennan §11', which distinguishes it from the sibling astroway_hellenistic_hand_lots_of_seven. There is no verb (compute/return/calculate), but the reader can still infer this returns a computed set of lots from a birth moment.

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 statement of when to use this versus the Hand lots, Greenbaum lot-of-eros, or Arabic parts tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a natal moment is needed). Only the required field list is given, which is schema information rather than guidance.

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