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 genuinely useful non-schema facts — the endpoint path and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) — which help an agent budget calls across siblings. It says nothing about failure modes, invalid-input behavior, or what "JWG" abbreviates, so it clears the lower annotated bar but does not exceed it.

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 bracket-tag structure is well organized and front-loads the domain summary before endpoint, requirements, and cost. Every element is short and earns its place, though the unexplained "JWG:" prefix is an opaque abbreviation that costs more clarity than the characters it saves.

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 tool with only 33% schema description coverage, the definition is too thin: it does not explain how the many optional astrological switches interact, nor does it expand the domain acronym for an agent unfamiliar with Jeffrey Wolf Green astrology. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is legitimately omitted, but parameter-selection guidance is the real gap.

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 33%, so the description is expected to compensate, yet it only repeats the four required parameters already enforced by the schema. Nothing is said about the consequential choices an agent must make here — tropical vs sidereal (zodiacType/ayanamsa), houseSystem, precision, fields compaction, or timezone vs timezoneOffset — all of which materially change the output for this 15-parameter tool.

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?

"Pluto sign+house+ruler+hard aspects" names the exact resource and the specific fields produced, which is enough to distinguish this from siblings such as astroway_evolutionary_nodal_axis_detail or astroway_evolutionary_skipped_steps. It stops short of an explicit verb ("calculate"/"compute") and never states it is an evolutionary-astrology-specific natal reading versus a generic Pluto placement lookup.

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 when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternative siblings for different evolutionary analyses. The "[Group: Evolutionary Astrology]" tag gives topical context only, and the "[Required: ...]" line merely restates the schema's required array rather than explaining selection conditions.

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