Rectification

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the 500-credit Tier 6 cost, the heavy-compute warning, and the HTTP endpoint. It does not describe the shape of the narrowing result or the compute cost of a wide search range, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 core sentence leads with the verb and purpose, and the bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required fields, cost) is scannable. Slightly boilerplate-heavy but every line carries actionable information.

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 the cost/prerequisite are covered. But with six parameters, nested objects, and undocumented search-tuning knobs, the description leaves an agent unable to reason about how to constrain the search or what the tradeoffs of a wide range are.

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?

Only the two required parameters (baseInput, events) are echoed from the schema; the four tuning parameters that actually control the search — orb, methods, stepMinutes, searchRangeMinutes — are never mentioned and have essentially no schema descriptions (17% coverage). For a tool whose whole function is narrowing a time window, the semantics of the window/step parameters are the most important thing to explain and are absent.

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 specific verb and object ('rectify an approximate birth time') and the evidence it consumes (life events, transit/direction hits), which is far more informative than the bare title 'Rectification'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling astroway_prognostics_rectification_trutine, so an agent cannot tell which rectification tool to pick from the text alone.

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?

It states the precondition clearly (birth time must be approximate and a list of life events must exist) and adds an operational instruction — confirm with the user before invoking because it is heavy. It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing at the Trutine variant as an alternative.

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