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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context - the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the required parameter set - but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response actually contains.

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?

The description is short, bracket-structured, and front-loads the key facts (group, endpoint, required params, cost). The opening phrase 'as primary chart spine' is interpretive filler, but the remainder is dense and earns its space.

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-value documentation is not required. However, for a 15-parameter sidereal-capable calculation in a family with many near-identical Hellenistic siblings, the description omits what distinguishes this axis output from related Greenbaum tools and how the timezone/zodiac options affect the result.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate, and it does not. It merely repeats the four already-required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema marks as required, leaving timezone vs timezoneOffset, ayanamsa/ayanamsaId, zodiacType, and houseSystem semantics entirely unexplained in the description.

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 the resource (Spirit-Fortune / Daimon-Tyche axis) but never states what the tool actually does with it - no verb like 'computes' or 'returns'. It does provide sibling differentiation by explicitly identifying itself as the Cursor-friendly alias of `astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_daimon_tyche_axis`, which is genuinely useful among hundreds of siblings.

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: nothing says when a practitioner should request the Daimon-Tyche axis versus zodiacal releasing, lots, or any other Hellenistic technique. The only routing cue is the alias note, which tells the agent this is interchangeable with the canonical name rather than when to choose it.

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