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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states the deterministic nature ('same input always returns the same output') and enumerates the return components (score, tier, percentile, consensus preview). It does not mention edge cases or error behavior, but given the predictable computational nature, this is adequate.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value—systems used, return structure, and determinism. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 26 systems, no output schema), the description adequately covers the output structure and key behavior. It does not explain the meaning of the score or tier, but the return format and determinism are clearly described, making it usable for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the purpose (birth date). However, since all parameters are already documented in the schema, this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and clearly identifies the resource ('Mythsensus Cosmic Score') with a range (1-999). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by detailing the unique synthesis of 26 divination systems and the specific output fields.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('for a birth date') and mentions determinism, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_deep_reading or daily_blessing. This is a minor gap, as the purpose is specific enough to infer appropriate usage.

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