Horary Diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by listing what checks are performed (early/late ASC, Via Combusta, Saturn in 7th, considerations before judgement). This clarifies what to expect beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes useful metadata (group, cost, example). The example is helpful but lacks parameter explanations. Overall, it is efficient but could be more complete.

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 the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no schema descriptions), the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the output looks like (e.g., text, JSON, report). The optional parameters (8 of 11) are left undocumented, making it hard to know their values or meaning. The description covers only the required fields in the example.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It only gives an example request body with date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude, but does not explain any parameter beyond that. There is no description of houseSystem, name, city, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram, or their defaults. This is a major 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?

Clearly states it runs a 'full horary radicality diagnostic' listing specific checks (early/late ASC, Via Combusta, Saturn in 7th, considerations before judgement). Verb 'Run' and resource 'full horary radicality diagnostic' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling horary tools that focus on single aspects (e.g., horary_via_combusta).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description calls it a 'full' diagnostic, implying it covers many checks, but does not state when one should prefer it over more specific horary tools (e.g., horary_moon_aspects) or what the prerequisites are. The cost is mentioned but not as a selection criterion.

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