Fixed Stars

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 that the tool calculates conjunctions and returns star details and aspect type, but does not disclose behavior beyond what annotations imply (e.g., no mention of rate limits, cost details beyond example, or what happens with missing parameters). No contradiction with 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 concise: one clear sentence explaining the function, followed by group/cost info and a JSON example. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. The example is helpful but could be more targeted. Overall, no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, astrology domain), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format (no output schema), list all parameters, or describe which fixed stars are used. The example shows a request but not the response, leaving the agent uncertain about return values. Essential context like default values for houseSystem, zodiacType, etc., is missing.

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?

The input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only provides an example request body showing some parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude, orb) but does not explain their meaning or how they affect results. Parameters like orb are mentioned in the description text but not explicitly mapped. No parameter descriptions are added, so the description does little to clarify semantics.

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's purpose: 'Calculate conjunctions between natal planets and fixed stars within a specified orb. Returns star details and aspect type.' It uses a specific verb (calculate) and resource (conjunctions between natal planets and fixed stars), making the function distinct from sibling tools like 'aspects' which are broader.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it includes a group label '[Group: Aspects & Points]', it does not differentiate from siblings like 'aspects' or 'moon_aspects'. There is no mention of when not to use or which tool to choose for similar tasks.

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