Temple Doctrine

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations lack: the endpoint, the four required inputs, and the cost of 10 credits (Tier 1). It does not describe what is returned or how the assignments are structured.

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 bracket metadata is scannable and front-loads the essentials, and there is no padding. But the brevity comes from under-specification rather than editorial discipline — the one sentence of prose carries almost no content.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a 13-parameter astrological computation the description leaves the core semantic — what a temple-house assignment is and when an agent should request one — entirely unaddressed.

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 coverage is only 23% across 13 parameters. The description merely repeats the required set (date, time, latitude, longitude) already declared in the schema's required array, and says nothing about the nine optional controls (zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsa, cosmogram, city/name) that materially change the result.

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 the specific technique ('Temple-house assignments per Greenbaum') and ties it to the Greenbaum tradition, but never states what the tool actually computes or what a 'temple house' assignment is. The agent can distinguish it lexically from Greenbaum siblings like dodekatemoria or sphaera_barbarica, but not semantically.

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 or when-not guidance, no named alternative among the many Hellenistic tools, and no indication of what question this doctrine answers. The only orientation is the '[Group: Hellenistic: Greenbaum tradition]' tag.

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