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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint, which are genuinely useful behavioral facts not present in annotations, but says nothing about what the returned profile contains or how the profile is computed.

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?

One-sentence purpose plus a compact bracketed metadata block; the purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded. The metadata lines are terse and each carries distinct information (group, endpoint, required inputs, cost).

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?

The output schema excuses explaining return values, but with 15 parameters and a required date/time/lat/long set, the description never clarifies whose chart is being read — the founder's birth moment or the business's founding moment — which is the single most consequential ambiguity here. Given low schema coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters — and it does not. It restates the four required params (date, time, latitude, longitude), which the schema already marks as required, and offers no meaning for city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, or the ayanamsa variants beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names a concrete resource (industries) and the scoping input (a founder profile), which is enough to tell it apart from siblings like astroway_business_ideal_partner_sign or astroway_business_leadership_style. It stops short of stating that the profile is derived from the required birth data, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing is given. The metadata block lists group, endpoint, required params, and cost, which is procedural detail rather than guidance on choosing this tool over the other ~40 business-astrology siblings.

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