Synastry Interpretation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's characterization as an 'AI interpretation' is consistent but adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the cost and group. The description does not disclose additional traits like typical response time or data persistence.

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 well-structured: begins with the core purpose, then groups meta-info (group and cost), and ends with an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 lacks explanation of what the AI interpretation output contains or its format, especially since no output schema is provided. It also does not clarify differences from sibling interpretation tools like interpret_natal or interpret_transits, though the group label partially helps. The example input is helpful but the absence of output details limits 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example request body that illustrates how to structure the required chart1 and chart2 parameters with realistic values, going beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 provides an AI interpretation of synastry between two charts, covering relationship dynamics, attractions, friction points, and long-term outlook. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'synastry' (raw data) by explicitly labeling it as 'AI interpretation' and grouping it under 'AI Interpretations'.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., synastry, composite, interpret_natal). The description lacks when-not-to-use conditions or mentions of other tools that might be better suited for specific needs.

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