Via Combusta Check

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful domain semantics (what Via Combusta means and its degree range) and a clear cost indicator (10 credits, Tier 1), but says nothing about the shape of the verdict or how ASC checking is handled given only moonLongitude is accepted.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, packing purpose, arc boundaries and interpretive meaning into one line. The bracketed endpoint/cost metadata is structured rather than prose, so it does not bloat the sentence.

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, and cost/endpoint are given. However, for a single-input astronomical check, the missing input format and the unaddressed ASC claim leave an agent without enough to construct a correct call confidently.

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 the single parameter moonLongitude has no type-level documentation beyond number|null. The description only restates that it is required and never states the expected units/frame (ecliptic longitude in degrees, 0–360, tropical vs sidereal), which is critical for a numeric astronomical input.

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+resource (check whether Moon/ASC is in the Via Combusta) and even defines the arc (15° Libra – 15° Scorpio) and its meaning as a classical horary prohibition. It is clearly distinct from siblings like horary_moon_voc or horary_diagnostics, though it mentions an ASC condition that has no corresponding parameter.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus other horary tools (astroway_horary_horary, astroway_horary_diagnostics, astroway_horary_moon_voc), nor any prerequisites about needing a chart cast first. The 'classical prohibition in horary' phrase implies context but gives no explicit when/when-not rules.

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