Midpoint Trees (Uranian)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool calculates symmetries, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as result format or pagination. The annotations carry the main transparency burden, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The group and cost lines are placed near the beginning. It is efficient with minimal fluff, but the brevity leaves some gaps in completeness.

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'Uranian midpoint trees' or 'planetary pictures' are, nor what the output contains. Users are left to infer from the example, which is inadequate for a complex astrological calculation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters but fails entirely. The example shows an 'orb' value but does not describe any parameter semantics. All 11 parameters remain undocumented, making it very difficult for an agent to construct correct requests.

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 it calculates Uranian midpoint trees and planetary pictures for each focal planet within an orb. It uses specific terminology that distinguishes it from generic midpoint tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'midpoints' or 'cosmobiology_midpoint_pictures'.

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 provides metadata (group, cost) and an example request body but offers no guidance on when to use this tool over sibling tools. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative references.

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