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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behaviour, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the group tag and the cost (100 credits, Tier 4), which is genuinely useful for an agent budgeting calls, but says nothing about output shape, size, or computation heaviness.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying the core scope, followed by two compact bracket tags for group and cost. No padding or restatement of the tool name, though the technical enumeration of aspects and crossings makes it slightly dense for one sentence.

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 the schema fully documents the input shape. However, for a niche progressed-lines technique with many astro-geography siblings, the definition lacks the situational context (progressed vs natal vs solar) an agent needs to route correctly.

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%, including rich notes on timezone, ayanamsa, houseSystem and the compact-mode fields/precision parameters. The description only echoes "target date" and adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 specific verb ("Analyse") and a well-defined resource ("Cyclo-Carto-Graphy (CCG) lines"), then narrows the scope to "progressed A*C*G lines at a target date with mundane/local aspects and latitude crossings." The "progressed" qualifier implicitly separates it from natal or solar ACG tools, but no sibling is named, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to pick CCG analysis over the neighbouring astroway_geo_acg, astroway_geo_solar_acg, or astroway_geo_relocation tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase "at a target date" only hints at temporal scoping; usage must be inferred from the technique name.

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