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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the endpoint, the four required fields, and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1). It does not, however, disclose latency, caching, or whether results are deterministic across ayanamsa choices.

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 definition is short, front-loaded, and every bracketed line carries real information (group, endpoint, required inputs, cost) with no padding. The opening output summary is a fragment rather than a sentence, which costs it the top score but not much else.

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 15-parameter derivation tool sitting in a dense cluster of business siblings, the description omits what the tool computes from, when it should be preferred, and how optional parameters affect the reading; output schema presence excuses it from explaining return values, but not from these gaps.

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, so the description carries the burden of compensating and does not. It merely restates the four required fields that the schema already marks required, and never explains the optional knobs (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, precision, fields, cosmogram) that materially change the computed profile.

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 lists outputs ('Founder type + strengths/weaknesses + ideal industry') but never states what the tool actually does or what input it derives from — it is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement. It also fails to distinguish itself from close siblings like astroway_business_ideal_industry and astroway_business_leadership_style, whose outputs overlap heavily with the listed items.

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 preconditions, and no routing to alternatives. Given that astroway_business_ideal_industry covers one of the described outputs and astroway_business_leadership_style covers personality-adjacent ground, an agent has no basis for choosing among them from this text.

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