Pluto Natal Condition

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, etc. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the output fields. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits.

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?

Very short (two sentences plus example), but the first sentence is cryptic ('JWG:') and the example is minimally helpful. Could be more concise, but lacks substance.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not clarify required parameters beyond date/time, return format, or how to use the chart parameter. The group label is the only contextual help.

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 does not explain any parameter. It only shows an example with a 'chart' field not in the schema, failing to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 it computes 'Pluto sign+house+ruler+hard aspects', which is clear. The group label 'Evolutionary Astrology' helps categorize, but does not distinguish from several sibling evolutionary tools like 'evolutionary_nodal_axis_detail' or 'evolutionary_skipped_steps'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The group label provides context but no exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are given.

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