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 fully covered without description help. The description adds only the cost tier (10 credits), a modest piece of behavioral context, but says nothing about what the computation produces or any limits.

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 front-loaded sentence plus two short metadata tags, with no wasted prose. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than lean.

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 described, and required inputs are standard chart coordinates. Still, for a 15-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no usage routing, the description leaves the agent guessing about the analysis produced and when to prefer it over siblings.

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 is expected to compensate, yet it mentions no parameter at all (date, time, latitude, longitude, zodiacType, houseSystem, etc. are left entirely to the schema). The documented parameters are rich, but the description adds zero semantic value.

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 description names a specific concept (a long-cycle wealth archetype keyed to Jupiter ~12y and Saturn ~29y returns), so an agent can tell it is a financial-astrology computation. However, it supplies no verb describing the operation and does not distinguish it from close siblings like astroway_family_saturn_return_cycles or astroway_calendar_planetary_cycles.

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 at all: nothing says whether this is for a long-term wealth outlook versus astroway_financial_market_timing (short-term) or astroway_financial_wealth_house. The group and credit tags are metadata, not usage direction.

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