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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one added behavioral fact is the billing cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which is genuinely useful and not in the annotations, but it says nothing about prerequisites, what the archetype output represents, or depth of interpretation.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with no wasted sentences, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline; the description is a label plus metadata tags, not an informative statement.

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 chart tool, the description omits what input is needed, how the archetype is derived, and how it differs from numerous sibling financial tools. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the input and routing story remain incomplete.

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 only 33% across 15 parameters, so the description needs to compensate for the undocumented ones (date, time, latitude, longitude, city, name, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram) and does not. It gives zero parameter meaning, not even that birth date/time/place are required inputs.

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?

The fragment 'Income / earning archetype by sign' names a topic but is vague about the operation: it never says it computes an interpretive archetype from a natal chart, and 'by sign' misleadingly suggests a sun-sign lookup despite requiring full birth data. It also does not distinguish itself from close siblings like astroway_financial_investor_archetype or astroway_financial_spending_style.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing information anywhere in the description. The only context is a group tag and a credit cost, neither of which tells an agent when to select this tool over its many financial-archetype siblings.

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