Zodiacal Decans

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) cover basic safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these, but does not contradict them. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 very short (two sentences plus group and example), but it lacks structure and fails to include essential information. Conciseness is good, but at the expense of clarity and completeness.

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 11 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output format, how parameters like cosmogram or houseSystem affect results, or what the example body signifies. The agent has insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 provide parameter meaning. However, it only shows a cryptic example request body with a placeholder '{"...chart":"..."}', which adds no value. Parameters like ayanamsaId, cosmogram, and zodiacType remain unexplained, leaving the agent to guess from names.

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 'Zodiacal decans with attributions' and the group, indicating the tool provides decans from the Hellenistic Greenbaum tradition. However, 'attributions' is vague and doesn't specify what the output includes (e.g., degrees, rulers, interpretations). The purpose is clear enough to identify the subject matter but lacks precision.

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 its many siblings (e.g., hellenistic_greenbaum_dodekatemoria, hellenistic_greenbaum_antiscia). The description only mentions the group and an incomplete example, offering no context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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