calculate_relocation_chart

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the added value here is real: it discloses that server checks run before results are returned, that verification references always identify the complete checked calculation, and that psychological interpretations are excluded from checking. It does not describe volume or cost of the full result, but the behavioral picture is otherwise clear.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the description is a dense block that partly restates the schema's own detail_level and include text, and the verification paragraph (three sentences) competes with the actual tool purpose for attention.

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 well to explain the two return shapes (full vs summary, plus include selection) and the verification contract. It is not complete for an 11-parameter tool, however, since the birth date/time inputs go entirely unexplained and the relationship to render_relocation_chart is unstated.

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 18% across 11 parameters. The description adds meaning for relocation_location_id, house_system, detail_level and include, but the seven date/time parameters (year, month, day, hour, minute, fold) and location_id are undocumented in both schema and description — an agent cannot tell that these are the alternative birth-moment inputs. The gap is too large for the description to compensate.

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 and resource (recalculates ascendant, midheaven and house cusps) and states the defining constraint that the natal moment and planetary longitudes stay fixed. That distinguishes it from natal-chart siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the very similarly named render_relocation_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 that relocation_location_id is required and where to get it (search_birthplace), gives the house_system options, and prescribes the downstream verify_calculation_claims step with the condition for reverting. No explicit when-not to use, and calculate_relocation_chart vs render_relocation_chart is left to the name alone.

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