Arroyo: Relational Map

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context not in annotations — the POST endpoint path and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost — but says nothing about what the map contains, whether it uses one chart or two (a real ambiguity for a 'relational' tool with only one date/time/lat/long required), or any rate limits.

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 block format is front-loaded and wastes no words; the endpoint and cost lines carry real information. The terse framing is efficient, though it reflects under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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 tool with 23% schema coverage and no annotation-level detail, the description is far too thin: it never explains the relational model, which optional parameters matter, or how output differs from sibling element-balance tools. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, but the input and selection story is incomplete.

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 must compensate, yet it only repeats the four required fields already marked required in the schema. It gives no meaning for houseSystem, zodiacType, cosmogram, ayanamsaId, or the timezone/timezoneOffset interaction beyond what the schema partially documents.

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 is essentially the title restated ('Relational element compatibility map') with no verb describing what the tool actually computes or returns. It offers no differentiation from nearby siblings such as astroway_relational_synastry_element_balance, astroway_psychological_modern_arroyo_element_balance, astroway_psychological_modern_arroyo_element_integration, or astroway_relational_match_score, so an agent cannot tell which element-compatibility tool to pick.

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 use this over the many alternative element/compatibility tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only guidance is a restatement of the four required parameters and a credit price, which does not help selection.

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