Draconic Chart

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the POST /v1/draconic endpoint and a concrete cost of 20 credits at Tier 2, which matters for budgeting. It stops short of describing output shape, but an output schema exists so that burden is already met.

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 dense sentence explains the calculation up front, followed by four compact bracketed metadata lines. Every token carries information; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 the entry is thin: an agent knows the required inputs and the credit cost, and the output schema plus annotations cover returns and safety, but the role of the nine optional parameters in a draconic chart is left entirely unexplained.

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 needs to compensate and largely does not. Listing the four required parameters merely restates the schema's 'required' array, and it says nothing about how optional inputs such as ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, or timezone affect a draconic result.

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 ('Calculate') and a specific resource ('draconic chart'), and goes further by defining the actual operation: shifting all longitudes so the True Node sits at 0°. That mechanism distinguishes it unambiguously from siblings like astroway_specialized_heliocentric or astroway_specialized_harmonics.

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 description gives prerequisites (required date/time/latitude/longitude) and cost, so an agent knows what it must supply, but it never says when a draconic chart is the right choice versus the other specialized-chart siblings, nor any exclusions.

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