Synastry Element Balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as response format, pagination, or limitations. It only mentions output concepts (tallies, dominant/missing) without structure details.

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 succinct with two sentences for purpose, then group/cost metadata, and a well-formatted example. No extraneous text; every element serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple computation tool, the description adequately outlines inputs and outputs. However, it lacks details on whether results are counts or percentages, and does not mention prerequisites like chart calculation. With no output schema, more context on return structure would be beneficial.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear explanations for chart1 and chart2 parameters. The description provides an example request body but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 the tool computes element (fire/earth/air/water) and modality (cardinal/fixed/mutable) tallies for each chart and the combined pair, with dominant and missing elements. This is specific and distinct from sibling synastry tools.

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 tag and example request, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like synastry_aspect_grid or synastry_attraction_score. Usage context is implied but not directly contrasted with siblings.

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