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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema facts: the POST endpoint, the required input set, and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost. It still says nothing about what the computation returns conceptually or any limits beyond cost.

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 bracketed metadata block is short and front-loaded, but it is a template that conveys no domain content, so its efficiency is partly wasted space. Nothing is padded, yet little earns its place beyond cost and required inputs.

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?

This is a complex 15-parameter, 3-enum astrological computation with a defined output schema, and the description never explains what the tiers of causation are or what the response contains conceptually. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the technique itself is left opaque.

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 should carry weight, but it only echoes the four required params already enforced by the schema. Specialized inputs like ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, fields, and precision receive no clarification here.

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?

"Schmidt's causation tiers" restates the tool name/title rather than describing an action or output. It gives no verb+resource framing and does not distinguish it from the many other Schmidt-tradition siblings such as astroway_hellenistic_schmidt_sect_classes or astroway_hellenistic_schmidt_aspectual_typology.

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 block lists required inputs, endpoint, and cost but never says when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. An agent has no basis for choosing between the ~20 Schmidt/Hand/Hellenistic technique endpoints beyond the name.

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