Ennea Mooirai

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: the POST endpoint and the price tag (10 credits, Tier 1), which matters for call budgeting. It says nothing about the response shape or any preconditions, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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 tag block is compact and each line carries information, with required fields and cost easy to scan. But the total payload is four metadata lines and a three-word phrase, so it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely 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?

For a 13-parameter Hellenistic technique with an output schema, the agent still has no idea what the nine fates are, how they are derived, or when the result is meaningful. The endpoint, required fields and cost are present, but the domain framing an agent needs to select and trust the call is absent.

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 carries real burden. It lists the four required fields but nothing about the other nine (zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, ayanamsaId, name, city, and so on), nor any format hints beyond what the schema already constrains. It fails to 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?

"Nine fates classification" is essentially an English gloss of the tool name (Ennea Mooirai) rather than a statement of what the tool computes. There is no verb and no explanation of what a "nine fates" result contains, and nothing distinguishes it from the ~15 other astroway_hellenistic_schmidt_* siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the sibling Schmidt techniques (sect classes, stations and phases, levels of causation, etc.). The bracketed metadata tells the agent the required inputs and the credit cost, which is operational context, not usage guidance or exclusions.

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