Planet Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds genuinely new context: the endpoint, the Core group, and the cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which matters for an agent deciding whether to spend a call. It does not discuss determinism or what the raw output looks like, but 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?

One substantive sentence with the limiting clause front-loaded, followed by compact bracketed metadata tags. Nothing is padded and the key constraint appears first.

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?

Endpoint, cost, required inputs and scope are covered, and the output schema relieves it of explaining return values. But for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, the description leaves too many optional-parameter decisions to inference, which is the main gap for an agent assembling a correct call.

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 carry meaning here and does not. It merely repeats the four required field names, leaving contested choices such as timezone vs timezoneOffset, ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId, and why houseSystem or cosmogram would appear on a no-houses tool unexplained.

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 and resource ('calculate raw planet longitudes') and bounds the scope precisely with the exclusion '(no houses, no aspects)'. That exclusion is what separates it from the full-chart sibling astroway_western_chart, so an agent can pick the right tool from the description alone.

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 'without full chart context' clause gives a clear condition for choosing this over a full chart tool, and the [Required] tag tells the agent what must be supplied. It stops short of naming the sibling alternative or stating when-not-to-use explicitly, so it is strong context rather than a full routing rule.

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