Greene: Saturn Shadow

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add useful billing context (10 credits, Tier 1) and the HTTP endpoint, but it says nothing about the depth, format, or interpretive behavior of the "integration work" itself.

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 description is short and front-loads the core label before the bracketed metadata. There is no filler, though the tag-based structure does not replace missing explanatory content.

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 endpoint with low schema coverage, this is under-specified. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the description should do more to explain optional inputs and the tool's intended use.

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. The description merely repeats the four required fields already marked required in the schema and does not explain the optional parameters (e.g., houseSystem, zodiacType, cosmogram, name, city) that the schema leaves undocumented.

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 mostly restates the title: "Saturn-as-shadow integration work" adds little beyond "Greene: Saturn Shadow." It does not say what the tool actually returns or how it differs from sibling Greene psychological tools such as individuation_path or archetypal_figures.

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 is given. The bracket tags list endpoint, required inputs, and cost, but there is no indication of when an agent should choose this over related psychological or Greene tools.

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