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 fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added behavioral fact is the cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which is genuinely useful but thin; it says nothing about computation time, whether the whole-chart is required, or caching.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the metadata tags are compact. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is enough context to route correctly among the many Greene/Psychological siblings, which is the main incompleteness for a 15-parameter report tool.

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 real burden to clarify inputs. It adds nothing about date/time/lat/long requirements or the sidereal/house-system options, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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 names a resource ('archetypal patterns in the chart') and a framework author ('per Liz Greene'), so the general purpose is inferable. However, it does not specify what an 'archetypal figure' result actually contains, and it offers no differentiation from the many sibling Greene tools (individuation_path, lunar_myth, parental_imagos, saturn_shadow) or the nearly identically named astroway_psyg_archetypal_figures.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling psychological/archetypal tools. The group and cost tags are metadata, not usage direction, so an agent must guess from the name alone which of the ~40 siblings to select.

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