Yesterday's Sky

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what the tool does beyond being a read action. The example request body is incomplete and does not clarify behavior.

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 (one line plus a group tag and an incomplete example). It is concise but lacks essential details, sacrificing utility for brevity.

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 (2 required), no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what data the tool returns, how to construct input, or any constraints, making it nearly unusable for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the 11 parameters (date, time, latitude, etc.). The example mentions 'chart' which is not a parameter, providing no added semantic meaning.

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?

Description says 'Forrest 2008 past-life method' but does not specify what the tool actually calculates or returns. The name 'evolutionary_yesterday_sky' hints at a chart for the day before birth, but the purpose remains vague. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any context about prerequisites or exclusions. The '[Group: Evolutionary Astrology]' tag implies a domain but offers no actionable usage advice.

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