Relocation Chart

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by specifying the return (new houses and planet positions) and including cost and example, but does not describe any side effects or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 (two sentences plus tags and example), with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and adds metadata (group, cost) efficiently. Every sentence contributes value.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description specifies the return (new houses and planet positions). The example covers essential inputs. However, it could mention that target latitude/longitude are required (as per schema) or explain constraints on valid coordinates. Still, for a relocation tool with annotations, it is largely complete.

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% (single body parameter with nested natal and target). The description provides a complete example request body, clarifying the structure. While the schema itself describes subfields, the example enhances understanding. No param details beyond the example, but sufficient given schema richness.

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 verb 'recalculate' and the resource 'natal chart for a new geographic location', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'chart' (original natal) and 'acg' (astro-cartography). It specifies inputs (same birth moment, different lat/lng) and outputs (new houses and planet house positions), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use cases ('recalculate for a new location') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The group tag 'Astro-Geography' contextualizes it, but no direct comparison with related tools like 'chart' or 'solar_acg' is provided. Clear context but lacks exclusions.

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