ephemeris_relocation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: credit cost per call and the behavioral detail that planetary longitudes remain unchanged while houses/angles shift. This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradiction.

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 lean: a one-sentence definition, credit cost, and a compact example. It is front-loaded with the core concept and avoids redundancy. The example is illustrative without being verbose.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the concept, usage, and a full example. It doesn't explicitly describe return values, but the purpose and effect are clear. Slight gap in output structure, but overall sufficient for invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's example provides concrete values but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter. No compensation needed.

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 a relocation chart' and specifies the mechanism: same natal planetary positions re-cast for a different geographic location. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like natal chart or transits by emphasizing that only house placements and angles shift, not longitudes.

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 phrase 'Used to understand how living in a different city shifts house placements and angles' provides clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the example and wording make the intended scenario evident.

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