Exercise Needs

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world call, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, disclosing a per-call cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) and the POST endpoint. It stops short of noting anything about result shape, but an output schema exists to cover 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 substantive sentence is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata lines are scannable, with no filler prose. The required-parameter line duplicates the schema, which is the only wasted content.

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 13-parameter computed-astrology endpoint, the description omits what the optional configuration parameters do to the result and offers no guidance on choosing between this and the other pet/wellness tools. The existing output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the input-side gaps remain substantial.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description carries real weight — yet it merely repeats the four required fields already marked required in the schema (date, time, latitude, longitude). The nine optional parameters, including zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId and cosmogram, which materially change the astrology computed, get no explanation or default guidance here.

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 states the concrete output — daily exercise minutes plus recommended activities, derived from the pet's element — which is far more specific than the bare title 'Exercise Needs'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as astroway_wellness_exercise or astroway_pet_play_style, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one fits a given request.

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 call this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many pet and wellness siblings. The only routing signal is a bracketed group/endpoint line, which describes plumbing rather than usage.

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