Critical Degrees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior context — the POST endpoint, the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, and the four mandatory inputs — which is exactly the kind of extra disclosure that earns credit here. It still says nothing about what computation is performed or whether a full chart context is required.

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?

Extremely short and the bracketed metadata is scannable, but this is terseness rather than concision — the space saved is space an agent needed. The one substantive sentence is front-loaded correctly, so what is present is well-ordered.

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 not be explained, but for a 13-parameter Hellenistic calculation at 23% schema coverage the definition is far too thin. It never explains what a "critical degree" is, whether the inputs describe a natal chart or an event, or how modality grouping appears in the result — all of which an agent needs to select the tool correctly.

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 23% across 13 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden and fails to meet it. It repeats only the four required fields, which the schema's `required` array already states verbatim; the astrology-specific switches (zodiacType, houseSystem enum codes, ayanamsaId vs ayanamsa, cosmogram) get no explanation at all.

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?

"Critical degrees by modality" names the technique and hints at how the output is organized, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and no object: an agent cannot tell whether this computes critical degrees from a chart, lists the classical critical degrees per sign, or flags which planets occupy them. Nothing distinguishes it from the many other Hellenistic tools sharing the astroway_hellenistic_hand_ prefix.

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 when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternatives among the dozens of hellenistic siblings. The only operational framing is the bracketed [Required: ...] and [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)] metadata, which tells the agent what to send and what it costs, not when this tool is the right choice.

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