Synastry Aspect Grid

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=true and idempotent=true. The description adds that cells contain either an aspect object or null, and lists default bodies. However, it does not explain computational details like applied orbs, aspect types, or how missing data is handled, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 at two sentences plus an example and metadata. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor points: it includes non-descriptive metadata (group, cost) that may distract, but overall efficient.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested objects with many fields) and no output schema, the description explains the output format (matrix size, bodies) and includes an example. However, it does not clarify aspect-related semantics like orbs, exact aspects, or how null cells arise, leaving gaps in contextual completeness.

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% and the input schema already includes detailed descriptions for both chart1 and chart2. The description provides a concrete example request body but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns an NxM matrix of cross-chart aspects between two charts, listing the default celestial bodies included (Sun..Pluto + nodes + Lilith + Chiron). It distinguishes from sibling synastry tools like 'synastry' and 'synastry_attraction_score' by specifying a grid format with specific default bodies.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'synastry' or 'synastry_house_overlay'. The description lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or distinguishing context relative to the many sibling synastry tools.

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