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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and group membership, but says nothing about computation source, auth needs, or latency beyond what annotations supply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the three outputs, followed by compact metadata tags. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is arguably too terse for a 15-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool requiring precise birth data among 15 parameters, the description omits input expectations and sibling differentiation, leaving it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 only 33% across 15 parameters, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all — it never mentions that date/time/latitude/longitude are required birth data. It does not compensate for the documentation gap left by the schema.

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 names the concrete outputs (founder type, strengths/weaknesses, ideal industry), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as astroway_business_ideal_industry or astroway_business_leadership_style, which cover overlapping ground.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. natal birth data required), and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded business-astrology sibling set. The only routing signal is the '[Group: Business Astrology]' tag, which is taxonomy rather than usage advice.

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