Health Watch-Outs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful operational context: the endpoint, required inputs, and a 10-credit cost, plus a medical disclaimer. It does not explain what the response contains or any auth/rate-limit behavior, but with annotations present this is adequate.

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 description is compact and front-loads the purpose in the first phrase. The bracketed metadata is efficient, though the terse style leaves some ambiguity about the tool's scope and does not add explanatory value.

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?

The tool has 13 parameters, only 23% schema description coverage, and no explanation of how optional parameters such as ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, or timezone affect results. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input surface is too complex to be left this underspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, and it does not. It merely repeats the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) already listed in the schema and gives no meaning, format, or defaults for the other nine optional parameters.

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 a specific output: sign-specific health vulnerabilities, which distinguishes it from sibling pet tools like diet, exercise, or personality. The verb is implicit rather than explicit, and the 'pet' context comes from the group tag/name rather than the first sentence, but an agent can identify the resource clearly.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as astroway_pet_diet_by_sign or astroway_pet_temperament. The only contextual note is 'NOT veterinary advice,' which is a safety disclaimer rather than a selection rule.

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