Derivative Houses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational facts not in annotations: the POST endpoint, the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, and the required inputs. It says nothing about result shape, but an output schema exists.

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 bracketed metadata block is terse and front-loads cost and required inputs, which is good structure. However, the leading sentence is too thin to earn its place as the only prose, making this under-specified rather than concise.

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?

This is a 13-parameter astrological computation with low schema documentation, and the description supplies none of the technical semantics (house system codes, sidereal vs tropical choice, what 'derived houses' yields). The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the input-side gaps remain serious.

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. The description repeats the four required fields already listed in the schema's required array but says nothing about houseSystem, zodiacType, cosmogram, city, name, or how ayanamsa/ayanamsaId interact, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Derived-house technique.', which restates the name and title rather than saying what the tool computes or returns. The group tag 'Hellenistic: Schmidt tradition' places it in a family but does not distinguish it from sibling Schmidt tools such as levels_of_causation or sect_classes.

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 technique versus the many other Hellenistic/Schmidt tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only routing context is an implicit group label; an agent gets no guidance on choosing this over a general house or lots tool.

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