calculate_relationship_charts

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that server checks gate successful results, that psychological interpretations are excluded from verification, and how detail_level truncates nested rows while preserving scalar lists. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent could not derive from annotations alone.

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?

Outputs are front-loaded in one dense sentence, followed by orb, verification workflow, and detail_level instructions. It is verbose in places and partially restates the include/detail_level schema descriptions, but most sentences carry actionable 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 enumerate the returned chart components, which is helpful. Gaps remain: it does not say that both person_a and person_b must actually be supplied (schema marks them optional via defaults), nor does it describe the result container beyond field 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 coverage is only 40%, and notably orb_profile has no schema description at all; the description supplies its 'greene (default) or tight' values, which is valuable. It also clarifies detail_level and include interactions, but it never explains person_a/person_b structure or whether they are required, leaving part of the parameter surface underspecified.

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 names the exact resource being computed: synastry aspects, cross-house placements, midpoint composite chart, composite-to-natal aspects, and shared house patterns for two people. That is far more specific than a tautology, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling options such as calculate_davison_chart or render_composite_chart.

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 a prerequisite ('two people with exact birth data') and a mandated follow-up (call verify_calculation_claims with the unchanged calculation_reference), which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use comparison against the many sibling chart tools, so the agent must infer routing.

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