Davison Chart

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it calculates a midpoint chart and includes an example, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits or error conditions.

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 a single clear sentence plus an example, which is efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured, e.g., separating purpose from example more explicitly.

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?

For a complex tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It explains what the tool does but omits output format, error handling, or further context needed for effective use.

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 100% via the input schema's per-field descriptions. The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond 'birth moments' and 'midpoint', so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool calculates a Davison relationship chart using the midpoint in time and space between two birth moments. The verb 'Calculate' and specific resource 'Davison relationship chart' uniquely identify the tool among siblings like composite or synastry.

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It belongs to the 'Comparisons' group but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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