Greene: Individuation Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations don't carry: the POST endpoint, the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, and which fields are mandatory. It says nothing about what the 'arc' output actually contains or its depth, which is the main behavioral gap.

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 one-line purpose followed by compact bracketed metadata blocks for group, endpoint, required fields and cost. Nothing is repetitive or padded, though the required-params line duplicates the schema's 'required' array.

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 low schema coverage, the description leaves the optional configuration surface (house system, zodiac type, sidereal school, cosmogram) unexplained and gives no sense of what the individuation arc delivers. The output schema covers return values, but an agent still lacks enough to call this correctly or choose it over the ~50 sibling psychological and cycle tools.

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 coverage is only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description needed to compensate and does not. It merely repeats the four required fields already enforced by the schema and never mentions the nine optional ones (zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, city, name, ayanamsaId), several of which have no schema description at all.

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 Jungian product ('individuation arc') scoped to a natal chart, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not distinguish itself from its Greene siblings (archetypal_figures, saturn_shadow, parental_imagos) beyond the topic label, so an agent must infer the difference from the concept name 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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The only routing information is the 'Modern Psychological' group tag and the required birth-data list, leaving the agent to guess whether Greene's individuation arc is the right report versus Arroyo's cycle_of_becoming or Rudhyar's cycles_of_becoming.

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