Mental-Health Profile

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

Annotations already confirm read-only, safe operation. The description adds value by detailing the output dimensions (dominant element, strengths, vulnerabilities, coping) beyond what annotations convey, even though no output schema exists.

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 two concise sentences plus a group tag and example. It front-loads the core purpose with no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool returns. However, it could be more explicit about the format or structure of the output, such as whether it includes textual descriptions or numeric scores.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add new semantic meaning to the parameters beyond the example request body, which is illustrative but not semantically additive.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: creating an element profile focused on luminaries (Sun, Moon) and personal planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars), and identifying dominant element, strengths, vulnerabilities, and coping. This distinguishes it from other wellness tools like wellness_medical_astrology or wellness_diet.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wellness_cycle or wellness_herbs. The group label 'Wellness' is present but no explicit context for tool selection.

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