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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds only the returned content fields plus the cost metadata (5 credits); it says nothing about how large the dictionary response is or how 'fields'/'precision' compaction interacts with behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and its contents front-loaded, followed by compact group/cost metadata. Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed metadata is boilerplate rather than descriptive.

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 the annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is routing: for a tool surrounded by four closely related dream siblings, the description does not supply the selection criteria an agent needs.

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%, so both parameters (fields, precision) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or examples beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 the resource clearly ('dream symbol dictionary') and enumerates its contents (category, element, archetype, common/shadow meanings, recurring-dream readings), which tells an agent what it gets back. The word 'Full' hints at a distinction from the filtered siblings, but it never names them, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 guidance at all. Siblings like astroway_esoteric_dreams_symbol_keyword, astroway_esoteric_dreams_decode, astroway_esoteric_dreams_by_element_element and astroway_esoteric_dreams_recurring_themes clearly overlap, yet the description offers no rule for choosing this one over them.

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