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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false). The description adds real value beyond them: the 250-credit Tier 5 cost, the 'confirm with user' caution, and the orb <=1° grounding rule. It does not explain side effects or why readOnly is false for what reads as a read operation, so it stays mid-range.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact input/return summary and bracketed metadata tags. Every sentence is short and purposeful, though the inaccurate input list is wasted text rather than too much text.

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 spelled out, and the aspect-orb detail is a nice touch. But with 8 params at 63% coverage and a stated input set that mismatches the schema, the definition is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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?

The description's input list ('chart + transitDate, transitTime/tzOffset, language, tone, length') does not correspond to the schema, which actually exposes date, time, fields, ayanamsa, ayanamsaId, timezone, timezoneOffset, precision. Naming parameters that do not exist is misleading rather than additive, despite 63% schema coverage doing most of the work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Snapshot transit interpretation') scoped to a single date, which implicitly separates it from the monthly/year-ahead/reports_transit_yearly siblings. The scope ('single date') is clear, but it never names an alternative sibling explicitly, keeping it below a 5.

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 '[Cost: 250 credits (Tier 5)] Heavy — confirm with user before invoking' line is genuine usage guidance about cost/prudence. However, it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance against the many other AI narrative siblings (natal, monthly, synastry, year-ahead), so routing is left to inference.

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