ephemeris_dignities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the credit cost ('CREDIT COST: 1 credit per call') and clarifying the scope ('all planets'). No contradiction with 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 two sentences plus a credit cost line, all front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence is necessary and efficient, with 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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, scope, and cost. While it could optionally detail the return format, the existing information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (datetime) described as 'ISO 8601 date/time.' The description mentions 'at a given date/time,' which aligns with the schema but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Calculate essential dignities (domicile, exaltation, detriment, fall, peregrine) for all planets at a given date/time.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and uniquely identifies itself among many ephemeris siblings by focusing on dignities.

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 says 'Essential for traditional astrology,' which implies usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ephemeris_planet_position or ephemeris_aspect_check. No exclusions or sibling differentiation are provided.

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