Harmonic Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds two genuinely useful facts annotations cannot express: the cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the endpoint. It says nothing about response shape or whether the harmonic positions are returned as a full chart, though an output schema exists.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing. The bracketed group/endpoint/cost lines are boilerplate but cheap and carry the cost information that earns its place. Slightly more could be said about the harmonic range caveat instead of the group label.

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?

The tool is simple (one required body with a harmonic field), an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't do much. It still leaves the agent without guidance on harmonic selection or on how this differs from the eight-harmonic and draconic siblings, and its range statement is inconsistent with the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, and the sentence 'multiplying all planet longitudes' does explain the semantic effect of the harmonic parameter well. However, it advertises the range as H2–H36 while the schema accepts 2 through 180, which will cause an agent to reject or avoid legitimate values. That factual conflict with the structured schema is a real defect.

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 concrete verb (calculate) and resource (harmonic chart) and goes further by explaining the mechanics — multiplying all planet longitudes by the harmonic number. An agent immediately knows what output to expect. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as astroway_cosmobiology_eight_harmonic_aspects or astroway_specialized_draconic, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for a harmonic chart rather than a natal chart, an eight-harmonic aspect listing, or a draconic chart. The only usage-adjacent information is the harmonic range, which constrains the value but not the situation. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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