Daimon-Tyche Axis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: cost (10 credits, Tier 1), the POST endpoint, and the tradition group. It does not disclose precision, whether the axis is derived from sect-light/time-lord conventions, or anything about what the response contains.

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 short and front-loaded, with the metadata tags compactly scannable. But the one prose sentence carries almost no information, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

A 13-parameter Hellenistic computation tool with an output schema needs its description to explain the calculation's intent and the meaning of the non-obvious configuration options. With 23% schema coverage and a single translated-name sentence, the definition leaves an agent guessing about most of the call surface.

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, and the description merely repeats the four required fields already present in the schema's required array. It says nothing about the undocumented-but-behaviorally-significant options (zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsa/ayanamsaId, cosmogram) so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

The sentence 'Spirit-Fortune axis as primary chart spine' essentially translates the tool name (Daimon = Spirit, Tyche = Fortune) rather than stating what the tool computes or returns. There is no verb describing the operation, and nothing distinguishes it from the many other astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_* siblings that operate on the same natal chart.

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 indication of when an agent should choose this axis computation over sibling Hellenistic tools (lots of eros, zodiacal releasing, temple doctrine, etc.), nor of prerequisites such as a prior natal chart. The only structured hints are the required-parameter list and the credit cost, neither of which is usage guidance.

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