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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior facts — cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), the POST endpoint, and the required input set — which is real value, though it says nothing about what the computation yields.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the purpose line first and bracketed metadata after. Nothing is padded, though the content is thin rather than tight.

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 and annotations exist, so return values and safety need not be restated, but for a 15-parameter psychological astrology computation the description gives no domain explanation, no usage context, and no differentiation from its near-identical sibling and the longer canonical name.

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, but the description only re-lists the four required ones (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema already marks required. It adds nothing about ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone, fields, precision, or cosmogram, leaving the coverage gap unfilled.

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?

"Arroyo's evolutionary cycle" restates the title and name rather than stating what the tool computes or returns. The operative content is metadata scaffolding (group, endpoint, required params, cost), not a description of the operation, so an agent cannot tell what output this produces.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no conditions for choosing this over the many sibling psychological/evolutionary tools (e.g. astroway_psyr_cycles_of_becoming, rudhyar_cycles_of_becoming). The only routing hint is that it is a "cursor-friendly alias" for the long-named form.

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