Local Space Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the output (azimuth and altitude). It does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior.

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, comprising two sentences plus example and metadata. The purpose is front-loaded, and the example is helpful. However, the group and cost lines could be integrated or omitted without losing core meaning.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what 'each planet' means, the output format (list, object?), or how optional parameters like cosmogram affect results. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool for non-trivial use cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains a few parameters via the example (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude). Parameters like houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, and cosmogram are not described, leaving the agent uncertain about their purpose.

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 calculates a local space chart, specifically azimuth and altitude of planets from a geographic location at the birth moment. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'local space chart' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like local_space_influence_zone.

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 alternatives. It includes a group label 'Astro-Geography' and a cost hint, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or references to sibling tools like horizon, zenith, or relocation.

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