Yearly Horoscope

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, including the use of specific astrological techniques (major transit cycles, solar return, time-lord) and cost information (100 credits, Tier 4). No contradiction with 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 concise with two clear sentences about purpose and context, plus a group label and cost line. The example request adds length but is useful. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse. Slightly longer due to example, but still appropriately sized.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description should provide a complete picture. It does mention the techniques used (transit cycles, solar return, time-lord) but fails to describe the output format, length, or how parameters relate to the computation. The example includes fields not in the schema, further reducing completeness.

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. However, the description does not explain any of the four parameters (sign, date, language, disclaimer_inline). The example request body includes fields (natal, year) not present in the schema, creating confusion rather than clarity. This severely hampers effective parameter understanding.

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 generates a year-ahead horoscope with a 12-month window, including major transit cycles, solar return chart context, and time-lord (profection). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like horoscope_daily, horoscope_weekly, and horoscope_monthly by specifying the time range and included techniques.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other horoscope tools (e.g., daily, monthly, compatibility). While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or not recommended, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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