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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds billing cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the four required inputs, but says nothing about what the computation actually produces or how it behaves on edge inputs.

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 text is tight and front-loaded with structured metadata, with zero wasted words. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision  there simply is not enough content to guide an agent.

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?

With an output schema present the return format needn't be described, but for a 15-parameter astrological computation the definition omits any explanation of what aspect classes are being classified or how the sidereal/house-system options affect results. It is too thin to be operationally complete.

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 low (33% across 15 parameters), so the description is expected to compensate, but it only re-lists the four required parameters that the schema already marks required. It adds no meaning for ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, fields, precision, or timezone handling.

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?

"Aspect classes per Schmidt" is a bare noun phrase that essentially restates the title "Aspectual Typology" with no verb and no statement of what the tool returns. It gives no basis for distinguishing it from near-identical siblings such as astroway_hels_aspectual_typology or the other Schmidt-tradition tools.

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 contains only group/endpoint/required/cost metadata and says nothing about when to reach for this tool versus the many neighboring Hellenistic or Schmidt tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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