Horary Moon Aspects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cost (20 credits), endpoint, and the scoping detail 'before leaving its sign', but does not elaborate on output structure or computation behavior beyond that.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, and the bracketed metadata lines (group, endpoint, required fields, cost) are compact and structured. No sentence is wasted.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover safety. However, with 13 parameters at low schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameter semantics or defaults, which it does not.

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, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance beyond restating the four required fields in the metadata line. The meanings of city, name, ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, and cosmogram are left undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific verb (List) and a well-scoped resource: aspects the Moon will make in this horary chart before leaving its sign. The horary and 'before leaving sign' qualifiers distinguish it from general Moon-aspect tools like astroway_calendar_moon_aspects, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'the key timing tool in horary' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternative horary tools such as astroway_horary_moon_voc or astroway_horary_diagnostics. The usage context is present but requires inference.

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