Duodecima

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — 10 credits (Tier 1) cost, POST endpoint, group tradition — but says nothing about output shape or what 'per planet' actually yields.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: definition first, then structured bracket lines for group, endpoint, requirements and cost. No filler sentences, though the definition line is so terse that brevity shades into under-specification.

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 astrological calculation with an output schema, the description should at minimum explain how zodiacType/ayanamsa/houseSystem affect the result and how it differs from dodekatemoria. Instead it leaves the agent to guess on both counts, despite correctly fixing the required inputs and cost.

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 schema description coverage at 23%, the description carries the burden but only restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude). The nine optional parameters — cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, city, name — get no explanation, and their astrological effect on a duodecima result is left entirely opaque.

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 names the technique and its defining number ('Duodecima: 2.5° micro-sign per planet'), which conveys the resource, but never uses a verb like 'compute' or 'return'. Critically, the sibling astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_dodekatemoria is essentially the same twelfth-part technique, and nothing here distinguishes 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 guidance at all: no statement of what question this answers, no exclusions, and no pointer to the near-identical dodekatemoria sibling or to zodiacal_decans. Only the required-parameter line hints at input prerequisites.

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