Djamaspa (DEPRECATED — RED quality, slated for v2.0 sunset)

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds significant context: deprecation status, data quality issues (oral tradition, scattered manuscripts), cost (10 credits), and an example request body. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with deprecation warnings, which is good, but it repeats deprecation in multiple places (title, beginning, bold warning). The example and metadata add some length. Could be more concise without losing essential info.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose, deprecation status, and an example. However, it omits details about the output format and does not clarify the extra parameters in the example, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema has only one required parameter (date) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not describe the date parameter explicitly, but the example request body includes extra parameters (time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude) beyond the schema, implying optional additional inputs without explanation. This adds some value but lacks clarity.

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 Djamaspa planetary positions for a date, specifying the verb 'calculate' and the resource 'Djamaspa planetary positions'. It differentiates from siblings by flagging deprecation and advising migration to broader /reference endpoints.

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 explicitly warns that the tool is deprecated, RED quality, and slated for sunset, and advises to migrate to broader /reference endpoints or remove dependency. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and directs to alternatives.

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