Stations & Phases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered without prose. The description does add two genuinely useful facts not found in structured fields: the endpoint and the cost (10 credits, Tier 1). It says nothing about what the response contains or how heliacal visibility conditions affect the result.

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 text is short and front-loaded, with no filler sentences, which is good. But the body is a single noun fragment followed by a bracketed metadata block, so the compactness reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 tool with only 23% schema description coverage; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the agent unable to tell what distinguishes this from adjacent Schmidt-phase tools or what the optional parameters do. For this complexity level, the definition is materially incomplete.

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 low (23%) across 13 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It restates the four required fields already marked required in the schema and gives no meaning for the nine optional ones (cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, city, name, ayanamsaId), several of which have no schema description at all.

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 names a resource ('heliacal phases and stations') but supplies no verb, so it is a topic label rather than a statement of what the tool computes or returns. The group tag identifies the Schmidt/Hellenistic family, but nothing distinguishes it from close siblings such as astroway_hellenistic_schmidt_morning_evening_stars or astroway_calendar_moon_phase.

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, no conditions or exclusions, and no named alternative among the many Schmidt and calendar phase tools. The only actionable context is the required-parameter list and the credit cost, neither of which is usage guidance.

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