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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one addition is the cost note ('see your plan — endpoint not in the public credit manifest'), which usefully warns that pricing is opaque but stops short of stating the actual credit cost.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and the indexing dimension, with the element list inline. The trailing bracketed Group/Cost tags are boilerplate but small; nothing is padded.

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 no explanation, params are fully covered, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is minor: result volume, ordering, or whether an element group can be empty.

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 100%, so `element`, `fields` and `precision` are fully documented in the schema itself; the description only restates the enum values already present there. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no new syntax or semantics.

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 concrete resource (dream symbols) and the indexing dimension (element), enumerating the five valid groupings. It implicitly distinguishes itself from keyword-based siblings like astroway_esoteric_dreams_symbol_keyword, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'indexed by element' — an agent can infer this is a browsable lookup rather than a decode or search call. There is no statement of when to prefer this over astroway_esoteric_dreams_decode or astroway_esoteric_dreams_symbol_keyword, and no prerequisites.

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