ephemeris_angles_points

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds credit cost (1 credit per call), which is useful, but does not disclose potential error conditions, return format, or any side effects. Beyond annotations, the added value is moderate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes the credit cost as a secondary detail. Every sentence serves a purpose; no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is sufficient for understanding its core function. It could mention the return format or error cases, but the current level is adequate for a focused calculation 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states the verb 'Calculate' and the specific resource 'chart angles and sensitive points', with examples like ASC, MC, DSC. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on these points rather than houses, planets, or charts.

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 when to use (for angles/points at a given datetime/location) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or which sibling tools are alternatives. No exclusions or context are mentioned.

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