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 the group classification and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about what is computed or how bodies are selected.

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 and front-loaded with no filler, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The metadata lines do earn their place by conveying group and cost.

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 explained, but for a 15-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage and no usage guidance the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine when this is the right tool or how the optional inputs 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?

Schema coverage is only 33% across 15 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and adds no parameter meaning at all. The four required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude) and the many optional modifiers are left entirely to the schema.

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 'Bodies trining the rising sign' names the resource (planets in trine to the Ascendant) but is terse astrological jargon with an implied verb rather than an explicit one. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling `hellenistic_hand_*` and `helg_*` tools beyond the group tag, so an agent must rely on domain knowledge to place it.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the dense Hellenistic family. The group and cost tags are metadata, not usage direction.

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