Horary Moon Aspects

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, providing safety guarantees. The description adds valuable context: it operates on a horary chart, lists aspects only until the Moon leaves its sign, and mentions a cost of 20 credits. This complements the annotations well without 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 extremely concise, using just two sentences plus a group tag, cost line, and example. Every word adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity: 11 parameters, no output schema, and horary-specific context. It lacks descriptions for most parameters, does not explain the return format or how 'aspects' are defined, and does not guide the agent on how to set up a horary chart. The example helps but is insufficient.

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 description includes an example request body with 5 parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude), which is helpful for understanding typical usage. However, with 11 total parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the remaining 6 parameters (houseSystem, name, city, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram). This is a significant 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 clearly states the tool's function: listing all aspects the Moon makes in a horary chart before leaving its sign. It includes a specific verb (List), resource (aspects), and scope (horary chart, before sign change), and distinguishes it as the key timing tool in horary, differentiating it from siblings like 'moon_aspects' and 'horary_moon_voc'.

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?

The description provides context by calling it the key timing tool in horary, implying use for timing in horary charts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'moon_aspects' for general moon aspects or 'horary_moon_voc' for void of course moon. More explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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