Morning/Evening Stars

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the HTTP endpoint, which annotations do not convey, but it says nothing about what the classification returns or any edge cases.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the purpose, then structured metadata lines. The bracketed endpoint/group/cost lines are boilerplate but each carries operationally relevant information, so there is little waste.

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 and annotations exist, so return-value detail is not strictly needed. However, with 13 parameters and low schema coverage, an agent gets no explanation of the optional knobs that materially change the result (ayanamsa, zodiac type, house system), leaving the definition only marginally complete.

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 merely re-lists the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema already marks as required, and adds nothing about ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, timezone, or timezoneOffset.

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?

States a specific subject and output: classifying planets as morning vs evening stars within the Hellenistic Schmidt tradition. The resource is identifiable, though it does not distinguish itself from near siblings like schmidt_stations_and_phases, so it just misses the top tier.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no naming of alternative tools even though many Hellenistic/Schmidt siblings exist. The only practical cue is the required-parameter list, which is about how to call, not when to choose it.

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