Aspect Check

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the return content and a concrete credit cost of 1 per call, though it does not describe output shape or precision.

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 short and front-loaded with usage triggers, followed by a clear return statement and a separate credit-cost line. Every sentence adds actionable information without waste.

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 two-longitude calculation tool with complete parameter documentation and strong annotations, the description covers usage, return content, and cost. It is nearly complete, though the absence of an output schema means the exact returned aspect/separation structure is not fully specified.

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 three parameters including max_orb default are already documented in the schema. The description only implies the two longitude inputs and orb concept, without adding syntax or interpretation beyond the schema baseline.

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 operation: returning the separation between two ecliptic longitudes and any aspect within orb, with concrete user-question examples. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from broader sibling tools such as synastry or chart exploration.

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?

It gives explicit trigger examples like 'is 15° Aries square 18° Cancer' and 'is this within orb', which clearly indicate when to use the tool. It does not provide when-not guidance or name alternative sibling tools for broader chart comparisons.

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