Aspectual Typology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely new operational facts — a 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the POST endpoint — which matter for budgeting and are not in the annotations, but it says nothing about result shape or limits.

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?

It is short and front-loads the concept, and the metadata lines are compact. However, brevity here is under-specification rather than economy: the single content sentence carries almost no information, so the compactness earns little credit.

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 described, but for a 13-parameter Hellenistic calculation the agent still lacks any explanation of the technique or of how the optional modifiers change results. The definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently beyond the four mandatory fields.

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?

The '[Required: date, time, latitude, longitude]' line merely repeats the schema's required array. With 13 parameters and only 23% schema coverage, the nine optional parameters (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, timezone, etc.) go unexplained in both schema and description, and no astronomical/typological meaning is added.

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 is essentially the title restated: it names a resource ('Aspect classes') but never explains what an aspect class is, what Schmidt's typology distinguishes, or what the caller receives. It gives no basis for distinguishing this tool from the many other astroway_hellenistic_schmidt_* siblings (sect_classes, stations_and_phases, qualities_and_quantities).

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 and no named alternative. The bracketed block lists required inputs and cost, which is invocation detail rather than usage context; nothing tells an agent which Schmidt tool to pick or when this analysis applies.

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