Critical Degrees

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. It includes an example request body but no explanation of side effects, output structure, or limitations.

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?

While the description is short, it lacks substance. True conciseness would convey meaning efficiently; here, the brevity results in omission of critical information. The example request body is vague and not helpful.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and a specialized astrological concept (critical degrees), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what critical degrees are, how modality is used, or what the output will be. An agent cannot reasonably use this tool based on the description alone.

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, the description must compensate but does not. The only parameter mention is a placeholder in the example body ('"...chart":"..."'). None of the 11 parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, etc.) are explained or linked to the tool's function.

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 'Critical degrees by modality' is vague and lacks a verb or specific resource. It does not clearly state what the tool does, such as 'calculate' or 'display'. Among many similar Hellenistic tools, it fails to distinguish itself.

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 like hellenistic_hand_bounds or hellenistic_greenbaum_dodekatemoria. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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