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 a genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations do not carry: this call costs 10 credits (Tier 1). It says nothing about response shape or computation depth, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Three short blocks with the core phrase front-loaded and no wasted prose; the alias and cost are stated compactly. It is concise but the brevity is achieved partly by omitting necessary content, which is a content problem rather than a structure one.

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 chart tool with 33% schema coverage, the description is far too thin: purpose is left vague, no parameter guidance is given, and no usage context is offered. The output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but everything else an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 and only 33% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy compensation burden and provides none — no mention of date/time, coordinates, zodiacType, ayanamsa, houseSystem, or the compact-mode fields/precision options. An agent gets zero parameter meaning from the description beyond what the partially documented schema already shows.

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?

"Outer-planet cycles as becoming" is a poetic restatement of the title ("Rudhyar: Cycles of Becoming") rather than a verb+resource statement. The only concrete information is that this is a cursor-friendly alias for `astroway_psychological_modern_rudhyar_cycles_of_becoming`, which helps name routing but does not tell an agent what the tool actually computes or returns.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no comparison against siblings such as astroway_psyr_lunation_phase or astroway_psyr_transits_as_rebirth. The group tag ("Modern Psychological") and cost tier are metadata, not usage direction; the alias note only says which duplicate name to prefer.

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