2nd & 8th House

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating that the tool returns house cusps and signs, which is consistent with a read-only operation. No contradictions or additional traits disclosed.

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, front-loading the purpose in a single sentence. The example request and group label add value without waste. Every element serves a clear function.

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 the high schema coverage, clear annotations, and the tool's simple purpose (house cusps and signs), the description is complete. No output schema is needed for this type of tool, and the example clarifies the expected input format.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to parameters; it only provides an example request body. Parameters are already fully described in the input 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 clearly states the tool provides house cusps and signs for the 2nd (personal money) and 8th (shared resources) houses. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like financial_wealth_cycle or financial_career_money_style, which cover different aspects of financial astrology.

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?

The description implies use for financial astrology via the group label and example request, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., financial_wealth_cycle). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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