Contra-Antiscia

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the lower bar applies. The description does add genuinely useful operational facts not in the annotations: it is a POST endpoint and costs 10 credits (Tier 1). It says nothing, however, about what the contra-antiscia computation produces or any domain caveats.

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?

It is compact and the endpoint/required/cost block is easy to scan, but the size comes from under-specification rather than discipline. One sentence of actual meaning plus boilerplate is not enough for a 13-parameter tool.

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 need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. But the central question an agent must answer — what an 'equinoctial contra-antiscia' result is and how it differs from the plain antiscia tool — is left entirely unaddressed for a fairly heavy 13-parameter request.

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 must carry weight, and it does not. It merely repeats the four required names (date, time, latitude, longitude) already declared in the schema's required array and says nothing about zodiacType, ayanamsaId, houseSystem, cosmogram, city or name.

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?

The description is a bare restatement of the tool name: "Equinoctial contra-antiscia." It adds the qualifier 'equinoctial' but no verb, no statement of what is computed or returned, and no differentiation from the nearby siblings astroway_aspects_antiscia and astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_antiscia_hellenistic.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion or alternative named. The only context is the bracketed metadata block listing required inputs and the endpoint, which tells an agent what to send but not when this tool is the right choice over the antiscia siblings.

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