Pet Birth Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the 10-credit (Tier 1) cost and that a disclaimer is included, but says nothing about latency, error modes, or how the ayanamsa/timezone choices alter the output.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the deliverable, followed by compact bracketed metadata. Little waste, though the '[Required: ...]' line duplicates the schema's required array.

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 annotations cover safety. But for a 13-parameter chart calculation with mostly undocumented parameters and a genuine timezone-offset pitfall, the description leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

With 23% schema description coverage across 13 parameters, the description needs to compensate but only restates the four required fields already enforced by the schema. The nuanced parameters — timezone vs timezoneOffset precedence, ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId, houseSystem codes, cosmogram — get no explanation in the description.

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 resource ('Full natal chart for the pet') and enumerates the contents (sun, moon, ASC + planets) plus a disclaimer. That is enough to separate it from interpretive pet siblings such as astroway_pet_personality or astroway_pet_sun_sign_meaning, though it never says so 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 choose this over the many other pet tools or over astroway_western_chart/astroway_reports_natal. The bracketed metadata only lists required inputs and cost, which is not usage guidance.

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