electional_moment_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable operational context: a credit cost of 5 per call and a concrete example of the expected date format, which goes beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a one-line usage context, credit cost, and a single example. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant or filler content, and it is compact enough to be read quickly.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns by listing the analyzed components and the overall 0-100 score. Combined with the usage context, credit cost, and example, it gives an AI agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly for a simple task.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions and defaults (100% coverage). The description enhances this with a concrete ISO 8601 example ('2026-03-21T12:00:00Z') including a timezone, which clarifies the expected syntax beyond the schema's basic type description.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('astrological quality of a specific moment'), then enumerates the exact components (planet positions, aspects, void of course status, lunar phase, day ruler, electional score). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling ephemeris tools that focus on other chart calculations or transit timelines.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Perfect for evaluating whether 'right now' or a specific date/time is good for action.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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