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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the credit cost and tier, which is genuinely useful operational context absent from annotations, but says nothing about computation scope, planet set, or output shape.

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 that defines the deliverable up front, followed by bracketed metadata for group and cost. Nothing is redundant and the operative definition is front-loaded.

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, and annotations cover safety. The gap is the missing link between the tool and its required input: the agent is not told that a natal chart (date, time, latitude, longitude) must be supplied, nor how receptions rank against essential dignities output, which a sibling-heavy toolset makes non-obvious.

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%, including detailed natal-chart fields and compact-mode fields/precision, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter information at all; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (find mutual receptions between planets) and then defines the concept operationally: pairs where each planet is in a sign ruled, exalted, or in the dignity of the other. An agent can tell what a result means. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as astroway_dignities_essential_dignities or astroway_dignities_disposition_chains.

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 statement of when to choose this tool over the other dignity tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only routing signal is the [Group: Dignities & Receptions] tag, which is a category label rather than guidance.

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