Geodetic Equivalents

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it uses the Sepharial method and maps longitude to zodiac degrees, providing moderate context beyond 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 short and includes a group label, cost, and example. It could be more concise by omitting the cost line, but overall it is fairly efficient.

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?

The description lacks explanation of what 'geodetic chart degrees' are, the output format, or how the optional parameters affect results. For a complex astro-geography tool without output schema, this is incomplete.

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 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description only mentions latitude and longitude in the example, failing to explain method, year, or obliquity. This forces the agent to infer meaning, which is insufficient.

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 converts geographic coordinates to geodetic chart degrees using the Sepharial method, mapping longitude to zodiac degrees. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 mentions the group 'Astro-Geography' and provides an example, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like acg or solar_acg. Usage context is implied but not directly addressed.

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