Independently verify an ascendant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it reveals that the tool recomputes via a library-free spherical-geometry path, reports distance from the primary engine, and optionally validates an external claim, naming the likely cause when it fails. It does not cover failure modes or exact output details, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 four sentences and every sentence earns its place: the independent method, verification behavior, usage trigger, and accepted claim formats. It is front-loaded with the core mechanism and contains no padding.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains verification behavior, optional claim validation, when to invoke it, and accepted input formats. It does not specify the exact return structure or edge-case behavior, but the calling context is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful examples for the `claim` parameter ('Virgo', '處女座', '12 Leo', 'Leo 12°34''), which the schema leaves abstract. It also reinforces that date, time, and timezone are local birthplace values, matching the schema's own definitions.

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 states a specific verb ('recompute'/'verify') and resource ('ascendant'), and clarifies that it uses a pure-spherical-geometry path independent of the primary engine. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling chart-calculuation tools and makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a user says two sites disagree about their rising sign, doubts a result, or asks which one is correct,' providing concrete trigger conditions. It does not name alternatives among the siblings or state when not to use it, but the use cases are clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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