Arroyo: Element Balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful operational facts beyond the annotations: the POST endpoint and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, which matters for a paid API. It says nothing, however, about what the computation returns or its dependence on birth data vs chart settings, so it is useful but thin.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the body is a metadata block (group/endpoint/required/cost) rather than explanatory prose. Nothing is wasted, yet none of the sentences explain the operation, so brevity here reflects missing content rather than discipline.

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 astrological computation with 23% schema coverage, an agent cannot tell what the tool computes, what the optional chart settings change, or when to prefer it over element_integration. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the input and purpose 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 compensation duty and fails it. It lists the four required parameters, which the schema already declares as required, and says nothing about the meaningful optionals (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram) that materially change the result. Siblings like timezone and ayanamsa are documented in the schema, but the bulk is left ambiguous.

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 opens with the noun phrase 'Element distribution and integration,' which restates the tool name rather than naming a specific operation. It never says what is being computed (presumably elemental weighting of a natal chart from the birth data) or how it differs from the near-identical sibling astroway_psychological_modern_arroyo_element_integration. Only the bracket metadata (group, endpoint) adds orientation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all, which is a real problem given siblings like arroyo_element_integration and arroyo_relational_element_map that appear to occupy the same niche. The 'Required' line only echoes the schema, not usage conditions.

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