calculate_natal_structure_graph

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that there is no ranking, that partial graphs explicitly mark unavailable houses and axes, that server checks gate successful results, and that summary mode truncates with markers while verification references always identify the full calculation. These are substantive behavioral facts an agent could not infer from the schema; only the return shape remains implicit.

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 with the core action and scope, then progressively adds workflow and output-shape detail; every sentence carries information. It is dense and runs several ideas together (verification, preview, field selection) without visual structure, which costs a little readability.

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 a complex, no-output-schema calculation tool it covers the workflow (verify then interpret), partial-result handling, and result-shaping options. Remaining gaps are the birth-time parameter conventions (fold, timezone) that an agent must guess from parameter names.

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 only 22% across 9 parameters, and the description compensates well for the two documented ones (summary previews up to five rows and marks truncation; include selects 1-30 top-level fields and omits everything else). The seven date/time and fold/location parameters get no semantics beyond 'exact civil birth time', leaving timezone/calendar conventions unaddressed.

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 ('Calculate a deterministic natal structure graph') plus the inputs that define it (exact civil birth time and location_id), and enumerates the contents (dispositor paths, cycles, receptions, aspects, motifs, both house systems). It explicitly differentiates itself from calculate_natal_salience and verify_calculation_claims, so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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 routes: use calculate_natal_salience for configurable classical-seven attention candidates, and call verify_calculation_claims with the unchanged calculation_reference before interpreting. It also states what is out of scope (psychological interpretations are not checked) and when to use include/detail_level versus omitting both.

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