Horoskopos Trine

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating what it computes—no mention of side effects, required permissions, or output format. It contributes minimal extra transparency, so the score is low.

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—one line of functional text plus group and example. It is concise but not efficiently structured; the example request body is incomplete and not helpful. It could be improved by front-loading a clearer purpose and adding essential details.

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, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, how to interpret results, or how to properly construct a request (e.g., required chart format). The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based solely on this description.

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?

The input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameter, leaving their meaning and usage entirely to the schema. With no parameter documentation, the description fails to add value for parameter semantics.

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 action ('Bodies trining the rising sign'), specifying a verb ('trining') and resource ('rising sign'). It indicates the tool identifies celestial bodies in trine aspect to the ascendant. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling Hellenistic Hand tools like 'hellenistic_hand_bounds' or 'hellenistic_hand_critical_degrees', leaving ambiguity about its unique function.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description lacks any 'when' or 'when not' conditions, which is insufficient for an AI agent to make an informed choice among many similar tools.

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