Sect Strength Score

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 nothing beyond these, except a group label. It does not contradict annotations, but also doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., that it requires a chart input).

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 unstructured. The example is truncated and unhelpful. While conciseness is valued, this lacks necessary detail, making it more of an omission than efficient communication.

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 specialized domain (Hellenistic astrology), the description provides almost no context. It does not explain what 'sect-light dignity' is, how the score is derived, or which parameters are critical for the computation.

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 bears full responsibility. It only shows a partial example request body with '...chart' and does not explain any of the 11 parameters, their roles, or how they affect the scoring. The agent has no clue what each parameter means.

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 'Numerical sect-light dignity scoring' which hints at the function but lacks a clear verb and resource. The title 'Sect Strength Score' adds some context, but the purpose is not explicitly stated in plain language. It fails to distinguish what specific calculation is performed.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., hellenistic_hand_bounds, hellenistic_hand_critical_degrees). There is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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