Synastry Aspect Grid

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the default 13×13 dimensions, the exact body set, that empty cells are null rather than omitted, and a 50-credit Tier 3 cost. It stops short of noting response size or pagination.

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?

Two dense sentences plus compact bracketed metadata lines (group, endpoint, required, cost). The matrix shape and default body set are front-loaded, and no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still usefully characterizes cell contents as aspect-or-null and gives the default matrix size. The main gap is the absence of guidance on choosing between this and the other synastry/comparison tools in a very crowded sibling set.

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 100% and both chart objects carry extensive field-level documentation, so the schema carries nearly all parameter meaning. The description only adds that chart1 and chart2 are required and are 'the two charts'; it adds nothing about body selection, aspect orbs, or chart configuration options.

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 resource: an N×M matrix of cross-chart aspects between two charts, with the default body set enumerated (Sun..Pluto + nodes + Lilith + Chiron) and cell contents specified ('aspect or null'). This clearly separates it from narrative synastry tools, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'cross-chart aspects between the two charts' signals synastry work, and the matrix framing suggests it is for grid/table output rather than prose. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over astroway_relational_synastry, astroway_relational_synastry_house_overlay, or astroway_render_aspect_grid.

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