Horary Moon VOC

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what is returned (last aspect, ingress timing), but says nothing about permissions, computational behavior, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if the Moon is not VOC).

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 single sentence stating purpose and output, followed by a compact endpoint/required/cost metadata block. Efficient and no wasted prose.

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. However, for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, the description neither clarifies the optional astrological parameters nor their effects, leaving real gaps for an agent configuring the call.

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, and the description adds no meaning beyond the required date/time/latitude/longitude list. Parameters like zodiacType, houseSystem, and ayanamsaId are left for the schema alone, leaving the description unable to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: checks Moon void-of-course in a horary chart and returns last aspect plus next-sign ingress time. The 'horary chart' framing distinguishes it somewhat from astroway_calendar_moon_voc, but no explicit sibling differentiation is offered.

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 'in this horary chart' implies the usage context (horary charts), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like astroway_calendar_moon_voc or astroway_stream_void_of_course.

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