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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that — ranking by astrological weight, proximity re-ranking when a point is given, and a 50-credit Tier 3 cost. However, it also claims '11 languages' while the schema enum exposes 21, which undermines trust in the stated 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 tight sentences front-load the core behavior, followed by three compact metadata lines (group, endpoint, cost) that are scannable and earn their space. The inaccurate '11 languages' figure is a defect in content rather than length.

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 structure need not be explained, and the input schema carries the parameter burden. What remains missing is sibling disambiguation within a very large geo_acg cluster and accuracy on the language count, so the definition is adequate but not complete.

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 the schema already documents body, fields and precision in depth; baseline is 3. The description contributes only marginal meaning, implying that a point parameter toggles proximity ranking and that a language selection controls interpretation text, without naming or elaborating either.

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 states a concrete resource and scope: A*C*G lines narrowed to one life category, ranked by weight. That is a clear verb-plus-resource statement an agent can act on. It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes this tool from the crowded geo_acg family (astroway_geo_acg, astroway_geo_acg_categories, astroway_geo_acg_best_places), all of which plausibly return similar lines.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The clause 'when a point is supplied, by proximity to it' hints at how results change, but not at when an agent should prefer this tool over astroway_geo_acg or astroway_geo_acg_best_places.

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