Astral Data Inventory

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds beyond annotations: 'Does not compute anything or take any input beyond response_format' reinforces the read-only, no-side-effect behavior. It also clarifies the scope of what is inventoried.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The main action ('Inventory...') is front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential information about purpose, scope, and constraints.

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 low parameter count (1, optional, with full schema coverage), rich annotations, and existence of an output schema (though not provided), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (domains and tools), that it's read-only, and that it requires no substantive input.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions that the tool 'take any input beyond response_format', which repeats the schema. The description of the parameter in the schema already explains the output shape. The description adds little new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Inventory the data domains this server exposes (natal, transits, relationship, geocoding), which tools serve each, and the recommended first calls.' It uses a specific verb ('Inventory') and resource ('data domains'), differentiating it from sibling tools like astral_compute_natal_chart or astral_current_transits which perform computations. The added clarification 'Does not compute anything' further distinguishes it.

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 understanding server capabilities and recommended initial calls. It explicitly states 'Does not compute anything,' signaling when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to prefer this over others, though the context makes it clear it's a meta tool.

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