Interactive Time Lords Explorer

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the render differs by host (inline in Claude/ChatGPT, text elsewhere) and there is a stated cost of 9 credits with two documented surcharges. That budget and platform-dependence detail is exactly the kind of trait an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded trigger phrasing, then output contents, then cost, with zero redundant sentences. Every clause carries new information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a solid job of naming what comes back and in what form, and the credit note covers cost surprises. It does not clarify the relationship to 'ephemeris_time_lords', which is the one thing an agent still has to guess at.

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 the schema carries the parameter mechanics and baseline 3 is met. The description still adds meaning by tying credits to specific inputs: +1 to resolve a place name (the 'location' parameter) and +1 for a pre-1970 local birth time (the timezone/local-time path) — useful behavioral framing the schema does not provide.

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 a specific verb + resource ('Returns an interactive timeline') and enumerates the outputs precisely: releasing from Spirit and Fortune, peaks and loosing of the bond, the profection wheel, firdaria, next changes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'ephemeris_time_lords', which an agent could reasonably confuse with the non-interactive variant.

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 concrete user-phrase triggers ('show my zodiacal releasing', 'when are my peak periods'), which is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming when to use the sibling 'ephemeris_time_lords' instead, and gives no exclusion conditions, so there is still an inference gap.

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