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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the HTTP endpoint, which annotations do not provide, but says nothing about what the response contains or any limits on the computed arc.

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 short, front-loaded with the one-line purpose, and the bracketed metadata lines are scannable. Little is wasted, though the tag lines are boilerplate rather than substantive.

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 computed astrology tool, the description leaves the agent without any sense of what the output covers or how optional inputs change it. An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, but the near-total absence of usage and parameter context leaves it under-specified.

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 at 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only recites the four required fields already listed in the schema's required array. It adds no meaning for ayanamsa, houseSystem, zodiacType, fields, precision, or the timezone/timezoneOffset interaction.

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?

It names a specific artifact ('individuation arc') and its input basis (natal chart), which is better than a bare name restatement, but 'individuation arc' is unexplained jargon and the tool is essentially identified only as the aliased Greene endpoint. It gives no differentiation from siblings like astroway_psyg_saturn_shadow, astroway_psyg_archetypal_figures or the psyr_* family beyond the group label.

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 choose this tool over the many other psychological/Greene tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only routing information is the alias note, which points to the identical tool rather than an alternative.

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