get_planet_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns structured placements, which is useful, but it does not disclose edge behavior such as how unknown_time affects calculations or whether the output is stable across repeated calls. The description is not contradictory and provides modest value beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentence that communicates the core action and output without verbose filler. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The phrase 'optional exact birth time and location' introduces ambiguity, which slightly reduces the otherwise strong efficiency.

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 seven parameters, required fields, and six sibling tools, this description is too sparse to fully orient an agent. It does not explain when to use this tool instead of calculate_birth_chart or get_big_three, nor does it clarify key invocation details like unknown_time, timezone requirements, or required latitude/longitude. The output schema helps with return values, but the description alone is incomplete for safe selection and invocation.

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?

The schema covers 71% of parameters, and the description adds only a general reference to 'birth date and optional exact birth time and location.' This is misleading because latitude, longitude, and timezone are required by the schema, so calling location optional conflicts with the schema. The description does not clarify unknown_time, timezone handling, or the role of latitude/longitude, leaving important required parameters underspecified.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Calculate'), a resource ('planetary positions'), and the required input ('birth date'). It also states that the output is 'structured placements supported by GetBirthChart', which adds intent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from calculate_birth_chart or the other sign-specific sibling tools, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like calculate_birth_chart, get_big_three, or get_rising_sign. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or mention that this tool is for raw placements rather than a full chart interpretation. Usage context is entirely left to the agent to infer.

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