Exercise Recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cost tier (10 credits) and the transport details, which are genuinely useful extras, but says nothing about what 'element-based intensity' means or how the recommended/avoid lists are derived.

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 summary line is short and front-loaded, but the bracketed metadata block (group/endpoint/required/cost) is boilerplate that largely duplicates schema and transport facts. No sentence is padded, but nothing is expanded where it matters.

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 the required-parameter list plus cost tier are present. Still, for a 13-parameter tool with only 23% schema coverage, the description leaves an agent guessing about defaults and about which optional parameters affect the exercise output.

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, and the description contributes nothing beyond restating the four required fields, which the schema already marks as required. No explanation of how date/time/latitude/longitude are interpreted, whether the defaults (zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsa) meaningfully change the exercise recommendations, or what 'cosmogram' does — the low coverage is not compensated at all.

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 one-line description 'Element-based intensity + recommended/avoid activities' states the output content but not a clear verb or resource; the title 'Exercise Recommendations' and the endpoint POST /v1/wellness/exercise carry most of the meaning. An agent can infer this returns exercise guidance grounded in elemental intensity, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like wellness_yoga or wellness_diet.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of astroway_wellness_yoga, astroway_wellness_diet, or astroway_pet_exercise_needs, all of which plausibly overlap. The only routing signal is the '[Group: Wellness]' tag, which does not explain selection.

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