Decanic Rulers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added value is the cost line ('10 credits, Tier 1') and the endpoint, which are genuinely useful operational context, but nothing is said about latency, output shape, or how optional switches change behavior.

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 compact and front-loads the core meaning before the bracketed metadata block. The tagged lines are scannable and contain no filler, though the terse phrasing leaves the core sentence under-explained.

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 documented, and the annotations cover safety. Still, for a 13-parameter computed astrology tool, an agent is left without any sense of when the tool applies, what the sidereal/tropical and house-system switches mean for the result, or how it relates to sibling decan tools.

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 13 parameters and only 23% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude). Nine optional parameters, including zodiacType, houseSystem, and cosmogram, receive no explanation of how they affect decan-ruler output.

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 a specific technique and output ('Chaldean decan rulers') rather than restating the tool name generically, so an agent can tell it computes decan rulerships. However, 'per planet' is ambiguous and it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_zodiacal_decans or astroway_hellenistic_hand_decennials.

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?

The description contains no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The bracketed metadata only says which inputs are required and what the call costs, which does not help an agent choose this over the other Hellenistic or decan-related tools.

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