Sect Classes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the POST endpoint and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, which lets an agent budget calls. It discloses nothing about what the classifications contain, edge cases (e.g. polar latitudes, day/night boundary), or failure modes.

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: the one-line purpose comes first, followed by bracketed operational metadata. Nothing is padded or wasted. It is efficient but so terse that structure substitutes for substance rather than supporting it.

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 astrology computation with low schema coverage, the description is far too thin — the tradition-specific meaning of 'sect classes' and the effect of the optional configuration parameters are unaddressed. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input-side gaps remain large.

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 needed to carry weight and does not — it merely restates the four required fields already marked required in the schema. The nine optional parameters that materially change results (ayanamsa, ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone vs timezoneOffset, cosmogram, city, name) are left entirely to sparse schema text.

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?

Identifies the resource (sect classifications) and the tradition (Schmidt), which nominally separates it from the Hand and Brennan sect tools. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb — it never says what is computed or returned, and 'sect classes' is undefined jargon for an agent that doesn't already know Schmidt's sect typology.

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 at all: no statement of what question this answers, no comparison against the many sibling Hellenistic sect/tradition tools (e.g. astroway_hellenistic_hand_sect_strength, astroway_hellenistic_schmidt_morning_evening_stars). The only operational hints are the required-parameter list and credit cost, which do not help choose this tool over another.

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