Synastry Attraction Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, rate limits, or output format details). While annotations provide safety profile, description could still add value.

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 a single sentence front-loaded with core function, followed by group/cost metadata and an example. No filler, every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description states output is a '0–100 attraction score', which is fairly clear. However, it lacks details like data type (float/integer) or how weightings work. For a simple numeric tool, it's nearly complete but could be slightly more precise.

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%: the input schema already explains 'chart1' and 'chart2' parameters in detail (required fields, defaults, accuracy note). The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so baseline score of 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 what the tool does: compute a weighted 0–100 attraction score from specific astrological contacts (Sun-Moon, Mars-Venus, etc.) and 5th-house overlay. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'synastry' or 'synastry_aspect_grid' by focusing on a single numerical output.

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 usage for a quick attraction score but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'synastry' for full details, 'synastry_aspect_grid' for aspect breakdowns). With many synastry siblings, clearer differentiation would improve score.

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