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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds cost metadata ('10 credits, Tier 1') and the tradition grouping, which an agent needs for budgeting, but says nothing about behavior such as computation dependencies or the fact that an output schema drives the response.

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?

Three terse bracketed lines, front-loaded, with no wasted prose. Each element (group, cost, alias) earns its place, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of efficient completeness.

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 astrological computation tool with 33% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but it still leaves purpose, usage context, and most parameter meanings 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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description carries a compensation burden it does not meet — it mentions no parameters at all. Date/time/lat/long are self-evident from name and pattern, but the undocumented fields (zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, etc.) get no clarification from either source.

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 description says 'Schmidt's causation tiers,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'levels of causation' rather than a specific verb+resource. It does add real value by disclosing that this is an alias of `astroway_hellenistic_schmidt_levels_of_causation`, helping the agent avoid a duplicate call, but it never states what the tool actually computes (e.g. a chart-derived breakdown of causation levels).

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when to prefer it over the canonical Schmidt tool or the other `hels_*` variants, or what prerequisites exist. The alias note implicitly routes the agent but does not establish usage conditions or alternatives.

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