Horary Diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the specific radicality factors computed and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost. It does not describe return shape or latency, but the output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by compact metadata lines; no wasted prose. The bracketed metadata is dense and useful rather than filler.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, and the description lists the computed factors. However, for a 13-param tool with 23% schema coverage and multiple near-duplicate horary siblings, the definition does not do enough to guide correct selection or parameter usage.

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%, so the description carries a compensation burden. It merely restates the four required params (date, time, latitude, longitude) already marked required in the schema and adds nothing about timezone vs timezoneOffset, ayanamsa selection, or houseSystem choice, leaving most of the 13 params unexplained in both structured and prose form.

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?

Specific verb ('Run') plus resource ('horary radicality diagnostic') with a concrete enumeration of the checks performed (early/late ASC, Via Combusta, Saturn in 7th, considerations before judgement). Clear about what it produces, but does not distinguish itself from horary siblings like astroway_horary_via_combusta or astroway_horary_horary which likely overlap.

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 description implies usage (a diagnostic run for horary radicality) and notes required params and 20-credit cost, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives among the many horary siblings. An agent must infer selection from the purpose alone.

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