Horary Planetary Hours

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is fully covered. The description does add real operational context beyond that: the POST endpoint, the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, and the two-part output (ruler + ASC-ruler match). It still says nothing about how 'match' is determined or what happens when it does not match, which is the interpretively important part.

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 behavioral sentence is front-loaded in one clause, and the bracketed metadata lines (group, endpoint, required, cost) are scannable and cheap. The required-parameters line duplicates the schema and is the only dead weight.

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 the description needn't explain returns, and the cost/endpoint metadata is a plus for a paid computation call. However, for a four-parameter computational tool with zero schema description coverage, leaving dayOfWeek encoding and hour units unspecified means an agent cannot reliably construct the call from the definition alone.

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 0% and four parameters carry no field-level documentation, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The '[Required: dayOfWeek, sunriseHour, sunsetHour]' line merely restates the schema's required array, and the optional currentHour parameter is never mentioned at all. Most critically, the units/format of sunriseHour and sunsetHour and the numbering convention for dayOfWeek (the schema types it as a bare number with no enum) are left unexplained.

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 specific verb and two outputs: the planetary hour ruler at the moment of a horary question, plus a check against the ASC ruler. The horary framing plausibly separates it from sibling calendar/panchang hour tools, though those siblings (astroway_calendar_planetary_hours, astroway_vedic_panchang_hora) are never named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 'at the exact moment of a horary question' implies the horary-workflow context, and the cost line hints at a budgeted call. But there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no mention of the horary entry point (astroway_horary_horary) or of when a plain planetary-hours lookup is the better choice.

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