Derivative Houses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'Derived-house technique', failing to explain what the tool returns or any side effects (e.g., does it modify anything? No, but that's not stated). The description adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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, but that reflects under-specification rather than good conciseness. It includes a group tag and an incomplete example, but lacks a clear, standalone purpose statement. The structure is minimally informative.

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 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe what 'derivative houses' are, what inputs are required beyond date/time, or what the tool returns. The agent would be unable to use this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 explain parameters. It only provides a truncated example request body with no explanation of any of the 11 parameters. The agent has no way to know what 'name', 'city', 'cosmogram', etc. mean in this context. This is a critical gap.

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 'Derived-house technique' which is vague and barely explains what the tool does. It mentions the group and tradition but does not clearly indicate that it calculates derivative houses from a chart. Among many siblings like 'houses' and other Hellenistic tools, it does not differentiate 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not compare to similar tools like 'houses' or other Hellenistic methods. The context of use is implied only by the group name, but no explicit usage instructions or prerequisites are given.

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