Herbs by Planetary Ruler

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior context — 10 credits at Tier 1, POST /v1/wellness/herbs, and the required date/time/latitude/longitude — but says nothing about what the response contains or which classical planet wins when multiple signs are involved.

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 prose is two short sentences with no waste, and the core meaning is front-loaded. The bracketed metadata lines are structured and scannable rather than filler, though they consume more of the definition than the actual explanation does.

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 read-only nature is covered by annotations. But for a 13-parameter chart-based tool, the definition omits the crucial mapping from natal input to herb selection and the meaning of the optional astrology configuration fields, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently in edge cases.

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?

13 parameters at 23% schema coverage means most fields are undocumented, and the description only restates the four required inputs already enforced by the schema. It gives no guidance on why ayanamsa, zodiacType, or houseSystem matter for an herb lookup, or how city/name interact with the coordinates. The description does not 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?

The description names a concrete resource (herbs ruled by a sign's traditional planetary lord, Culpeper) and its scope (all 7 classical planets), so the topic is unmistakable. However, it never says which factor of the supplied date/time/location determines the sign, so the agent cannot tell what the tool actually computes. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling wellness tools beyond subject matter.

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 sentence states when to use this versus astroway_wellness_crystals, astroway_vedic_gemstones, or the other wellness endpoints, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage framing is the metadata block listing required inputs and a credit cost, which tells the agent what to supply but not when to choose this tool.

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