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 non-schema behavior (10 credits, Tier 1 cost) but says nothing about compute latency, quotas, or how the arc is derived.

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 content is front-loaded (purpose first, then bracketed metadata) and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative — the brevity leaves the definition thin for a 15-parameter endpoint.

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, but for a 15-parameter chart tool with 33% schema coverage the description supplies none of the missing parameter semantics, no indication of what the individuation output contains, and no guidance on supplying birth data. It is well short of complete for this complexity.

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% and the description merely relists the four required parameters, which the schema already marks required. It adds no meaning for the eleven optional parameters (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, fields, timezone, precision, etc.) that the schema leaves undocumented.

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 'Individuation arc per natal chart' names a recognizable resource tied to a natal chart, so the agent knows roughly what is computed. However there is no distinguishing detail against the many sibling psychological tools (greene_archetypal_figures, greene_saturn_shadow, psyg_individuation_path, etc.), so the purpose is stated but not differentiated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions that select this tool over its near-identical siblings, and no prerequisites beyond the required-field list. Group, endpoint and cost tags are metadata, not usage guidance.

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