Dodekatemoria

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior data not in the schema: it is a POST endpoint in the Greenbaum Hellenistic group and costs 10 credits (Tier 1). It says nothing about interpretation caveats or result shape, but an output schema exists and carries that.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose line comes first, followed by compact bracketed metadata. Nothing is padded, though the boilerplate tag lines do little work beyond the cost figure.

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 domain-specific tool with 13 parameters, low schema coverage, and a technically obscure concept, an agent gets no explanation of what a dodekatemoria actually is, which optional settings matter, or how this differs from the duodecima sibling. Only the credits/endpoint metadata fills a gap; the description is materially inadequate 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%, so the description should compensate, yet it only repeats the four required fields the schema already marks as required. The ten optional inputs (zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, ayanamsa choice, name, city) and the enum meanings are left completely unglossed.

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 noun-phrase gloss on the title ('Dodecatemoria sub-divisions of zodiac') rather than a verb+resource statement of what the tool computes or returns. It gives no basis for choosing it over the near-identical sibling astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_duodecima, so an agent unfamiliar with Hellenistic jargon cannot discriminate the two.

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/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite many closely related Hellenistic Greenbaum siblings. The bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required inputs, cost) is operational context, not usage guidance.

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