Horary Moon VOC

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description aligns with this, stating it 'checks' and 'returns' data, but adds no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 with two sentences plus an example request. Key information is front-loaded. However, the group and cost information could be considered extra detail not strictly necessary for understanding the tool's function.

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 no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, explain what 'last aspect' means, or provide guidance on interpreting results. The tool's usage in horary astrology requires additional context not provided.

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 add meaning to parameters. It only provides an example request covering required parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude) but does not explain the purpose or constraints of other fields like houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, or cosmogram. This is insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 purpose: 'Check if the Moon is void-of-course in this horary chart and return the last aspect it made and when it enters the next sign.' It uses a specific verb ('Check'), identifies the resource ('Moon is void-of-course'), and distinguishes from the sibling 'moon_voc' by explicitly mentioning 'horary chart'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'moon_voc' or 'horary_moon_aspects'. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given, making it unclear for an AI agent to choose appropriately.

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