Best Names by Sign

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 needs no restatement. The description adds genuinely useful operational context — the POST endpoint and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost — which an agent needs for budgeting. It stops short of saying what the response contains, but an output schema exists to carry 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 functional sentence comes first and is only seven words, followed by three bracketed metadata tags, so there is no padding. The trade-off is that the compression costs detail rather than saving a redundant 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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage and an output schema, most of the burden is already carried structurally. What remains unexplained is the core mechanism — that the suggested names are keyed to the sign computed from the required birth date, time and coordinates — which an agent must infer before trusting the input contract.

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 100% and the birth-data object is documented in depth (date/time formats, ayanamsa, timezone rules, house system letters). The description adds only 'optional gender filter', which merely restates the gender enum on the body — the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a concrete resource — name suggestions aligned to a zodiac sign — plus an optional gender filter, so an agent can tell it produces pet names rather than a chart or interpretation. It does not, however, explain that the sign is derived from the supplied birth data, nor distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as astroway_business_name_suggestions or astroway_vedic_muhurat_naming_ceremony.

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 choose this tool over the other pet tools (birth_chart, personality, sun_sign_meaning) or when not to use it. The only routing context is the implicit '[Group: Pet Astrology]' tag, which hints at domain but gives no decision rule.

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