ephemeris_aspect_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds credit cost and mentions 'within orb' behavior, which is useful context, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling or edge cases.

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 very concise and front-loaded. It delivers the core purpose in the first sentence, then provides essential credit cost and a helpful example, all in just a few lines without 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?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (angular separation and aspects), includes a usage example, and notes the credit cost. It could be more complete by specifying the exact structure of the return value, but it is adequate.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds a concrete example and explains 'within orb' related to max_orb, but this is marginal value since the schema already defines max_orb and the longitude ranges.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource ('the aspect between two ecliptic longitudes') and explains what it returns (angular separation and aspects within orb). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle full charts or planet positions.

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 clearly implies the tool is for checking aspects between two longitudes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like ephemeris_transits or ephemeris_synastry, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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