Skipped Steps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the cryptic meaning of 'unfinished karma.' It does not contradict 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 very short (two lines), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure and fails to communicate essential information efficiently.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and a cryptic description, the tool is severely under-documented. The description does not cover inputs, outputs, or behavior, making it inadequate for correct selection and invocation.

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?

With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any parameter. The example request body uses a placeholder and adds no meaning to the properties. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'Planets squaring nodal axis = unfinished karma,' which hints at the tool's purpose but does not clearly specify that it identifies or calculates such planets. It lacks a clear verb and resource, making it ambiguous. The group label 'Evolutionary Astrology' provides context but does not differentiate this tool from siblings like evolutionary_nodal_axis_detail.

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 versus its siblings or alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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