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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by specifying the output payload (per-page title, one-to-two-sentence summary, link) and the bilingual result support.

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 return shape are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the long enumeration of supported factor types in the second is dense but each item earns its place by establishing the tool's input domain. Slightly list-heavy, but no filler sentences.

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 and only two simple params, the description carries the burden well: it explains what comes back and what inputs are accepted in both languages. Missing details are minor — nothing about result limits, pagination, or what happens when a factor isn't found.

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% and the 'topic' and 'lang' fields are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's single example by spelling out the full accepted vocabulary of chart factors and by stating 'English or Russian', which materially reduces malformed queries.

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 ('Finds pages of the AstralRead astrology knowledge base for a chart factor') and immediately distinguishes itself from computational siblings like natal_chart or transits_today by returning curated pages rather than chart data. The return shape (title, summary, link) is stated up front.

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 enumerated topic vocabulary (planets in signs/houses, Ascendant/MC, aspects, patterns, Nodes/Chiron, transits) makes the intended use case unmistakable — interpretation lookups rather than chart computation. It does not explicitly name siblings or state when not to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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