explore_natal_chart

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) indicate safe read-only operation. Description adds behavioral details: interactive, uses NASA JPL DE440 ephemerides, supports house system switching, fallback to static SVG. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: purpose, interactivity, technical precision, usage comparison, fallback. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Covers input requirements, behavior, fallback, precision, and host dependency. No output schema, but description sufficiently explains what it returns. Could mention that full interactivity requires MCP Apps support, but fallback note addresses it partially.

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%, so schema already describes all parameters. Description adds minimal value beyond mentioning house system options and timezone usage, which are already in schema. 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?

Clearly states the tool generates an interactive natal chart wheel with clickable elements and astrological interpretation. Distinguishes from sibling tool ephemeris_chart_wheel by specifying richer interactive experience and fallback behavior.

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?

Explicitly recommends using this tool over ephemeris_chart_wheel for MCP Apps-capable hosts and mentions fallback for other hosts. Provides context for when to use it, though does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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