Solar A*C*G

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond these, missing opportunities to explain idempotency or other nuances.

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 with a single paragraph and an example. No superfluous text, but the example is lengthy. Front-loading is good with the main purpose stated first.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe the return value or format. It adds group and cost context beyond schema but lacks output details. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 schema already documents parameters. The description provides an example request body but no additional semantic explanation of each parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the example is helpful but not essential.

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 'Calculate solar (heliocentric) astrocartography lines — geographic loci where each planet was on an angle relative to the Sun at birth.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'acg' and 'acg_zones'.

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 includes a group label '[Group: Astro-Geography]' and cost information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The unique name and description imply the specific use case (heliocentric vs geocentric), but no direct guidance is provided.

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