Sect Strength Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is operational: 10 credits (Tier 1) cost, the POST endpoint, and the four required inputs — genuinely useful context an agent cannot infer. However it says nothing about what the score means, its range, or how the sect light is determined.

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?

One content sentence followed by compact bracketed metadata lines; nothing is padded and the operational facts are front-loaded. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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-value explanation is not owed. Still, for a 13-parameter astrological computation with 23% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently — no note on which optional parameters materially change the score, no interpretation of the numeric result.

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% across 13 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate — but it merely repeats the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema already flags as required. Undocumented optional parameters such as zodiacType, houseSystem, and the ayanamsa/ayanamsaId pair get no clarification, and the interaction between timezone and timezoneOffset is left entirely to the schema.

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?

"Numerical sect-light dignity scoring" names the subject (sect light dignity) and the output form (numerical score), but is a noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from near siblings such as astroway_hellenistic_schmidt_sect_classes, astroway_hellenistic_brennan_bonifications_maltreatments, or astroway_dignities_essential_dignities. An agent knows roughly what domain it is in, but not precisely what this call returns that the others do not.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative among the many Hellenistic/dignity siblings. The only actionable framing is the metadata block's group and endpoint, which describes transport rather than selection criteria.

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