Full Chart (computed)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the POST endpoint. Beyond that it says nothing about defaults, what happens when optional params are omitted, or whether results are cached.

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 content sentence leads, followed by a compact bracketed metadata block for group, endpoint, required inputs and cost. Each line earns its place; the content sentence is packed with domain terms but not padded.

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 annotations cover safety. But for a 14-parameter calculation with 5 enums and 86% undocumented parameters, the description leaves an agent unable to choose settings or anticipate how choices affect the chart.

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 14% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains school, fixLeap, dayDivide, yearDivide, tianmaSchool, trueSolarTime, longitude, age or language, all of which materially change the computed chart. Only required fields are echoed.

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 concrete contents of the computed chart: soul/body palaces, five-element class, 14 main stars, twelve stages, 12 decade limits and the 四化 placements. That is a specific verb-less but well-scoped resource statement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling astroway_ziwei_full_chart or from astroway_ziwei_main_stars/twelve_palaces, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 metadata block states required inputs (date, time, gender) and cost, implying this is the entry-point full-chart call. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance, especially against astroway_ziwei_full_chart and the per-palace tools, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved.

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