Cosmogram (90° Render Data)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'render data' but no further behavioral context (e.g., return format, data structure, performance). With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 description is very short (three sentences), but brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It lacks structure and fails to deliver key information. Every sentence should earn its place; the example is misleading and the group tag adds little.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not state what data the tool returns, what inputs are critical, or how it relates to other tools. A complete description would explain the cosmogram data structure and required inputs.

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 0%, yet the description explains none of the 12 parameters. The example request body hints at a 'chart' parameter not present in the schema, which is confusing. This extreme lack of parameter documentation renders the description useless for correct invocation.

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 states 'Ebertin cosmogram render data', giving a resource and implied verb. However, it's vague about what the tool actually does (calculates positions? returns JSON?). Among siblings, render_cosmogram likely renders an image, so 'data' hints at a difference but not explicitly. A clearer verb like 'calculate' or 'generate' would help.

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 tool versus alternatives. The sibling set includes many cosmobiology tools (e.g., cosmobiology_dial_90) and render_cosmogram, but the description offers no criteria for selection or exclusion. Example usage context is missing.

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