calculate_house_rulers

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that both rulership tracks are returned regardless of house system, that output is data-only with no psychological interpretation, that server checks run before results, and that verify_calculation_claims must be called with the unchanged calculation_reference before interpreting. It also explains truncation behavior for detail_level=summary and that verification references always identify the complete calculation.

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?

Purpose and sibling routing are front-loaded, and every clause is actionable. There is mild redundancy — the psychological-interpretation exclusion and the detail_level mechanics are each effectively stated twice, once in prose and again in the schema.

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 carries the burden of describing returns: houses content, both ruler tracks, chart ruler, cross classifications, the summary truncation contract, and the verification handoff. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to follow the required post-calculation verification step.

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 rises above it by clarifying that house_system selects cusps/placements rather than ruler tracks and that both tracks are always returned. It also explains that include selects top-level content fields and that omitted arguments yield the original full result. Much of the detail_level text restates the schema description, limiting the gain.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Calculate) and resource (house-ruler dispositor chains for all twelve houses) and enumerates its outputs: traditional and modern tracks, chart ruler, and angular/succedent/cadent crosses. It immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming calculate_natal_structure_graph and calculate_classical_factors as the tools for adjacent concerns.

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 states the use case (house-based rulership paths) and explicitly routes two alternative needs to named sibling tools. It also gives concrete preconditions — exact local birth date/time, confirmed location_id, explicit house_system — and states that omitted prerequisites return needs_clarification rather than being inferred.

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