Find a Calculation

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it is local and free with no API call, so no credit is spent, which explains the openWorldHint=false rather than restating it. It also discloses the exact shape of the response (path, executing tool, inputs, example, credit cost). It stops short of saying what to do with the matches, e.g. that the returned tool name should then be invoked.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the mechanics. The long enumeration of astrology domains is dense but each item is a genuine disambiguation cue; minor compression is possible but nothing is wasted.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned fields, plus cost and locality. With only two parameters, one required, and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns a point by clarifying that query is natural language ("plain words") rather than an ID or path, which shapes how the agent phrases input. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — searches the Open Ephemeris API catalog by plain words — and enumerates the exact return payload (path, running tool, required inputs, example request, credit cost). The opening sentence distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the fallback when no typed tool fits.

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 says when to use it ("when no typed tool fits, before dev_read_api or dev_write_api") and names the alternatives it precedes, establishing an ordering the agent can act on. The domain list (KP, Varshaphal, Chinese lunar calendar, bounds, eclipses, Almuten, mansions, Venus star points, batch charts) gives concrete triggering cases.

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