Specific Placement Interpretation

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. Description adds cost of 100 credits and an example request, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the response format (e.g., plain text or structured data), especially since no output schema is provided. The description builds on annotations but leaves gaps.

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?

Description is very concise: a single sentence defining purpose, followed by group/cost metadata and an example. No fluff, front-loaded. Ideal for quick parsing.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description fails to connect that the tool requires both birth data (date/time) and a placement selection. The example shows only placement parameters, omitting required birth data. Given the complex nested input and no output schema, the description is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The example request body clarifies that planet, sign, house, and language are expected, but the description does not explain the meaning of other parameters like birth data fields. The example omits required date/time, which could mislead. Slight value added but not substantial.

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?

Description clearly states 'AI interpretation of a specific planet+sign+house combination — concise, focused on the placement only.' This indicates the tool's specific scope but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling interpretation tools like interpret_natal or interpret_element.

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. The description only implies specialization for single placements, but lacks explicit when-not or sibling references. Among a long list of sibling interpretation tools, this omission reduces clarity.

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