Profections Detail

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'full classical condition' but does not elaborate on what that implies behaviorally (e.g., whether it returns a planet, sign, or detailed conditions). With annotations covering basic safety, this is adequate but not enriched.

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, including a group tag and an example request body. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the group tag could be considered metadata. It is well-structured for a quick read.

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 information about the output structure, which is especially important since there is no output schema. The agent cannot anticipate what the result will contain (e.g., planet, sign, conditions). Given the complexity of profection calculations, this is a significant gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters (birth data and targetAge). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It references 'age' in the example but offers no further semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Annual profection year-lord with full classical condition,' clearly indicating the tool computes the year-lord for annual profections. The example shows the required age input. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'profections' or 'hellenistic_hand_perfections', which might produce similar output.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information is given. The agent must infer its applicability from the name and sibling list.

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