Symbolic Directions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a credit cost (50 credits, Tier 3) and an example showing the 'converse' parameter, which are behavioral traits beyond annotations. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise at two sentences plus metadata (group, cost, example). It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a representative example without extraneous text.

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?

The description defines the core purpose and provides an example, but does not explain the return structure or differentiate from similar tools like 'primary_directions'. For a complex astrological calculation, the agent may need more context on output and alternatives.

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% with detailed descriptions of the body object including required fields and defaults. The description adds an example request body that maps parameters to real values, clarifying usage. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 'calculate' and resource 'symbolic arc directions', specifying the types (1° per year, solar arc, Naibod) to natal points for a target date. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like primary_directions or progressions by naming specific arc methods.

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: Prognostics]' and an example request, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., primary_directions, profections). No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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