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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description is consistent with them. It adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the 10-credit Tier 1 cost — but says nothing about what the score means, its range, or error behavior. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 front-loaded one-line purpose followed by compact bracketed tags is efficient and easy to scan, with no wasted prose. The trade-off is that brevity is achieved partly by omitting needed guidance rather than by tight writing.

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, niche Hellenistic endpoint with dozens of near-neighbor siblings and an existing output schema, the definition is under-complete: no usage routing, no explanation of the score's semantics, and no coverage of the optional parameters. Only the bare mechanical facts are supplied.

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%, so the description should compensate, but it merely restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) already flagged in the schema. None of the eleven optional parameters (zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsa, timezone, fields, etc.) are illuminated, leaving a real gap.

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 'Numerical sect-light dignity scoring' names a specific technique (sect-light dignity) and the output form (a numerical score), so an agent can grasp what is computed. However, it does not distinguish this Hand-tradition sect tool from sibling sect-related tools such as astroway_hellenistic_schmidt_sect_classes, and there is no verb describing the operation.

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?

The description provides only group, endpoint, required params, and cost — no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to choose this over the many other Hellenistic sect/dignity endpoints.

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