Biorhythm (SVG)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive/ closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations don't: cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) and endpoint POST /v1/render/biorhythm. It does not mention that the default output format is json despite the title saying (SVG), nor any size/pagination behavior.

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?

One descriptive sentence followed by four bracketed metadata lines; the essence is front-loaded and nothing is wasted. Well-sized for a rendering tool.

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, and cost/required params are given. However, for a tool whose title advertises SVG while the schema default format is json, the description should flag the format choice; the nested options object is left entirely to an unlabeled schema.

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 0% and the nested options object (size, theme, title, width, height, format, showAspects, showRetrograde) is completely undocumented in the description. The description only restates the three required parameters already declared required in the schema, adding no syntax or semantic detail — notably it omits that format defaults to json. This fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb/resource in effect: a three-curve sine plot of physical, emotional and intellectual cycles, with exact cycle lengths. An agent can tell it produces a rendered biorhythm chart rather than raw cycle data. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling astroway_wellness_biorhythm or from other astroway_render_* tools.

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?

The [Group: Visualization] tag and the word 'plot' imply this is the rendering counterpart to data tools, and the required-parameter line gives preconditions. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over astroway_wellness_biorhythm (data) or why one render tool over another. Usage must be inferred.

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