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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the computation set (aspects with Lilly's orbs, applying-perfects-before-sign-change, void-of-course, combustion, considerations before judgement) and, importantly, that the yes/no verdict is deliberately withheld. It does not cover failure modes beyond pointing at an external error-contract URL.

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 is front-loaded, then cleanly labeled WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE blocks. The opening sentence is dense but the enumeration of computed facts is long; a small amount could be trimmed since the output schema covers return values.

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 8-parameter chart tool, the description covers scope, contents, sequencing, disambiguation, and input semantics, and the output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. Nothing required to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents every parameter including the quesited_house examples and house_system enum. The description's INPUT CONTRACT largely restates these fields without adding syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('chart of a question's moment') and scopes the method (Lilly's horary) plus the exact contents returned. The DO NOT CONFUSE section explicitly distinguishes it from asterwise_get_prashna_chart (Vedic question chart) and asterwise_get_western_natal (birth chart), so an agent can select it 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?

The WORKFLOW block gives explicit BEFORE (standalone) and AFTER (asterwise_get_western_significations) routing, and the DO NOT CONFUSE block names alternatives. It stops short of stating the triggering scenario (e.g. 'use when the querent asks a yes/no question arising at a specific moment'), leaving the when-to-use condition largely implied by the purpose.

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