Trutine of Hermes

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 behavioral context: the endpoint, the credit cost tier, and a mandatory user-confirmation gate. It doesn't disclose whether the result includes confidence bounds or what happens when the derived time is ambiguous, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the technique and its purpose, followed by compact bracket metadata that is dense but all operational. No filler prose; the only redundancy is restating required params already in the schema.

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, 250-credit operation the description covers purpose, cost, and the confirmation gate, and the output schema handles return values. However, it leaves the optional configuration surface unexplained, which is a meaningful gap when those options alter the computed rectified time.

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 needed to compensate and does not. It merely repeats the four required fields already encoded in the schema's required array, leaving ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone/timezoneOffset, city, name, and cosmogram completely unaddressed for a technique where sidereal vs tropical choice materially changes the answer.

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 technique: 'Apply the Trutine of Hermes (Animodar) technique to derive the birth time from the Moon's prenatal syzygy position.' The named technique effectively distinguishes it from the generic sibling astroway_prognostics_rectification, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two rectification paths.

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?

'⚠️ Heavy — confirm with user before invoking' plus the 250-credit Tier 5 cost is a concrete decision rule an agent can act on before calling. It lists the required inputs but gives no explicit when-not-to-use or guidance on choosing among the other rectification/prognostics tools.

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