Soul Types

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the cryptic phrase, not clarifying side effects or output format. With annotations, the bar is lower, but the description does not significantly enhance transparency.

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 but includes an unhelpful example and a group marker. It front-loads minimal information but lacks structure and substantive content, making it inefficient for decision-making.

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, no output schema, and a cryptic two-line description, the tool is severely underspecified. An agent cannot determine what the tool computes, what to expect as output, or how to use the parameters correctly.

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 clarification on parameters. The example request body references a '...chart' field not in the schema, and no parameter purpose or format is explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 mentions 'JWG's 4-type by Pluto house quadrant' and places it in 'Evolutionary Astrology', but does not explain what the tool actually computes or returns. The purpose is vague and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like evolutionary_nodal_axis_detail or evolutionary_pluto_natal_condition.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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