Draconic Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds the mechanism detail and credit cost, but does not disclose output format or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise at two sentences plus a group/cost line and example. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, the example is helpful but not essential; overall structure is efficient.

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?

Despite annotations covering safety, the description lacks output details and parameter explanations for an 11-parameter tool. Agents would need additional context to use it effectively, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description provides no parameter documentation. Only an example request is given, which does not explain the purpose of optional parameters like houseSystem, zodiacType, or ayanamsaId. Agents would lack understanding of how to set parameters beyond date/time.

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 verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'draconic chart', and explains the mechanism (shifting longitudes relative to True Node). It distinguishes this tool from other chart tools by specifying the unique transformation, making it easy for an agent to identify its purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like composite, davison, or other specialized charts. The group label 'Specialized Charts' is too vague to direct agent decision-making.

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