Qualities & Quantities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context — cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), the POST endpoint, and the required field set — but says nothing about what the returned analysis contains or how it differs behaviorally from other Schmidt endpoints. Some added value beyond annotations, so a 3.

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 layout is compact and front-loads the endpoint, required fields, and cost, which is efficient. However the one content sentence is content-free, so brevity here 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 values need not be explained. But for a 13-parameter, 10-credit Hellenistic endpoint surrounded by eight same-tradition siblings, the description leaves the central question — what this analysis actually yields and when to choose it — unanswered.

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 coverage is only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It merely repeats the four required fields already enforced by the schema and adds no meaning for the nine optional parameters (zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, ayanamsaId, etc.) that would materially change the analysis.

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?

"Qualitative + quantitative analysis" essentially restates the name and title (Qualities & Quantities) without naming a verb, a resource, or what specifically is computed. It does not distinguish this tool from the eight other Schmidt sibling tools (levels_of_causation, stoic_elementhood, sect_classes, etc.), so an agent cannot tell from the description what unique output it produces.

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?

The metadata blocks give required inputs and cost, but there is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling Schmidt analysis to prefer. The agent is left to infer selection from the name alone.

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