Explain Aspect

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld, and notably idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely new operational context in the credit cost (100 credits, Tier 4) and the POST endpoint. It does not explain why a read-only interpretation is not idempotent (presumably generated text varies run to run), nor any latency, rate-limit, or failure behavior.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded purpose followed by labeled metadata. Nothing is wasteful, though the terseness is achieved partly by omitting information rather than by disciplined editing.

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?

For a tool with a nested optional chart object, a language parameter, and 20% schema coverage, the description omits what happens when chart is absent or which planet-name vocabulary is valid. An output schema and annotations exist, so return values need not be explained, but the input ambiguities leave an agent guessing before it can call this correctly.

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 20% and the description does not compensate. planet1 and planet2 are unconstrained strings (2-40 chars, no enum, no schema description) and the description never says what values are accepted or how they relate to the optional chart object. It repeats the three required field names, which the schema already marks as required, adding almost no semantics.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Detailed explanation of an aspect between two planets.' An agent can tell this is an AI-generated interpretation of a single planetary aspect, distinct from astroway_ai_interpret_placement or _natal. It stops short of naming siblings or clarifying the scope (natal chart vs transit vs synastry) 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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of astroway_aspects_aspect_bar, astroway_ai_interpret_transit, or the Hellenistic/Vedic aspect tools. The only routing signals are the required-parameter list and the cost line, which imply usage but never state it.

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