Contra-Antiscia

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is clearly safe and deterministic. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, failing to explain what the tool computes or returns.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Important details are missing, making it ineffective. Every sentence should add value, but here only a vague phrase and an incomplete example are given.

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, no output schema, and a highly specialized concept (contra-antiscia), the description provides almost no useful context. It does not explain the underlying astronomy/astrology, the expected input chart format, or the return value structure.

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 only provides an example request body with a placeholder for "chart", leaving all 11 parameters unexplained. This does not help an agent understand parameter meanings or required formats.

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 'Equinoctial contra-antiscia' is a jargon-heavy technical phrase that does not explain what the tool does in plain language. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'antiscia' or 'hellenistic_greenbaum_antiscia_hellenistic', leaving the agent without a clear purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., antiscia, or other Hellenistic tools). There is no mention of prerequisites or context, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate scenario for invoking this tool.

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