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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context – the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the tradition grouping – but says nothing about what is computed or how the result is scoped.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with no filler prose; the bracket metadata and alias note are compact. It errs on the side of under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is clean.

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?

For a 15-parameter chart tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is far too thin: it omits what the decans/attributions actually are and gives no parameter guidance. The output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but the input-side complexity is unaddressed.

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 must compensate for undocumented fields (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, date, time, lat/long). It adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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 phrase "Zodiacal decans with attributions" largely restates the tool name and title, though "with attributions" hints at returned content and the [Group: Hellenistic: Greenbaum tradition] tag situates it. It never states the operation (is it computing, listing, or looking up decans?) or distinguishes itself from the many sibling decan/hellenistic tools. Adequate but vague.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: no conditions for choosing this tool, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives. The only pointer is the note that it is a cursor-friendly alias for astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_zodiacal_decans, which clarifies naming rather than usage.

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