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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context — the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the POST endpoint — but says nothing about the nature of the computation, precision of results, or how ayanamsa/zodiac choices affect output.

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 compact, front-loaded and free of filler; every line (group, endpoint, required, cost, alias) is a discrete fact. It is appropriately sized, though the space is spent on metadata rather than the substantive description that is actually missing.

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?

The tool is a 15-parameter computational endpoint with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), but the definition never states what the relational element map computes or how it differs from its many psychological/relational siblings. For this level of complexity the description is inadequate, despite correctly surfacing the required-parameter set and cost.

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 carries a heavy compensation burden, yet it only re-lists the four required params (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema already marks as required. It adds no meaning to the undocumented params (name, city, fields, cosmogram, ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem) and does not explain the interaction between the two ayanamsa fields or timezone vs timezoneOffset.

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 'Relational element compatibility map' essentially restates the title 'Arroyo: Relational Map' and the tool name without supplying a verb or explaining what is actually computed (a chart? a score? an aspect map?). No sibling is distinguished; the only differentiator is the '[Group: Modern Psychological]' tag, which the sibling naming already conveys.

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 no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative among the many overlapping psychological/relational siblings (e.g. astroway_psya_element_balance, astroway_relational_element_* tools). It lists structural facts (endpoint, cost, required params) but never says when this tool is the right choice.

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