Parallel Aspects

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 that it calculates 'within orb' and provides an example with an 'orb' parameter, which clarifies the scope. No contradictions. However, it does not disclose details about how results are formatted or any side effects.

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: one line for the core action, then group/cost metadata, then an example. It is front-loaded with the key information. The example adds value but is space-consuming. Overall, it is efficient and easy to skim.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide comprehensive guidance. It gives a high-level purpose and an example, but does not explain return values, how to interpret results, or the role of many parameters. The lack of output schema and parameter descriptions leaves significant gaps.

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. Only an example request body is provided, which covers some parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude, orb) but ignores 5 others (houseSystem, name, city, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram). No individual parameter explanations are given, leaving many parameters underdocumented.

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 explicitly states it calculates parallel (same declination) and contra-parallel (opposite declination) aspects between all planets within orb. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'aspects' which likely refer to ecliptic aspects. The verb 'Calculate' and resource 'aspects' are specific.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use for declination-based aspects via the title and example, but does not mention alternatives like 'aspects' for ecliptic aspects. Usage is inferred from the name rather than directly stated.

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