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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely new behavioral facts: the charged cost tier (50 credits) and what changes in the result ('new houses and planet house positions'). It omits any error/failure behavior, which keeps it off a 5.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the operation, then the return. The group and cost tags are compact metadata rather than prose padding. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 the description needn't enumerate return values, and annotations cover safety. What it does, its cost and its core output are all present. The remaining gap is peer differentiation within the crowded astro-geography family, which the description never addresses.

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 fully documents body/natal, fields and precision on its own. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Recalculate a natal chart for a new geographic location') and pins the exact concept with '(same birth moment, different lat/lng)'. This distinguishes the relocation chart from transit/return charts, though it never names a sibling geo tool (e.g. astroway_geo_local_space or astroway_geo_geodetic) to contrast against.

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?

Usage is implied by the parenthetical: use it when you want the same birth moment relocated. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no routing to the adjacent geo tools that also transform location data. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the selection condition.

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