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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/idempotent, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: approximate or unknown birth times retain alternative readings without fabricated houses or exact contacts, and the tool requires linked saved birth details. It also scopes out memories, private events, profile selectors and account changes, and discloses an age restriction; only rate limits and response shape are unaddressed, and an output schema covers the latter.

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 opening sentence is an overloaded run-on that buries the core purpose under stacked astrological terms, and the remaining sentences are a list of constraints rather than a structured when-to-use frame. It is not padded with filler, but it is dense and not front-loaded with a plain statement of what the tool is for.

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 a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description needn't explain return shape, and the birth-precision and access preconditions are thoroughly covered. What remains missing is any explanation of the date parameter's effect and any routing guidance relative to the many sibling timing/chart tools, which matters given how similar those names are.

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 0% for the single 'date' parameter, so the description carries the burden and fails it: the date input is never mentioned, and 'refined selected-year contacts' only vaguely gestures at a selected year without linking it to the date argument. The schema's pattern and 'today' const are self-explanatory, which softens but does not remove the gap.

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 first sentence names a specific resource and enumerates concrete outputs (progressed Sun/Moon signs, solar arc, whole-sign profection, selected-year contacts), so an agent can tell what it returns. However, it never contrasts itself with siblings like get_chart or get_timing_year, and the 'life chapters' framing requires the reader to decode astrological jargon to map it to a purpose.

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?

Preconditions are stated clearly (linked saved birth details required, no Plus plan, birth precision determines whether exact contacts are returned, 18+ age gate), which implies when the tool is usable. It gives no explicit guidance on when to pick this over get_chart, get_timing_year, or get_timing_month, so the choice among similar-looking tools is left to inference.

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