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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful billing context (Group: Wellness, 10 credits Tier 1), but says nothing about how the chart inputs are consumed or what the herbs output is keyed to.

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 prose is two tight sentences with the core fact (Culpeper rulership, 7 classical planets) front-loaded, followed by compact metadata lines. Nothing is padded, but the structure leaves no room for the input explanation the tool needs.

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 no explanation, but the description omits the essential framing that this is a chart-derived lookup requiring location and time. For a 15-parameter tool with 4 required chart inputs, that omission is significant.

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 is expected to compensate, and it does not mention a single parameter. Critically, it gives no hint that date/time/latitude/longitude are required or that they are birth-chart inputs for a herb lookup, which is the most confusing aspect of this tool.

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 specific resource and provenance: herbs keyed to a sign's traditional planetary lord per Culpeper, covering the 7 classical planets. That distinguishes it from wellness siblings like diet, yoga, or crystals. However, it never states that the tool is chart-driven (it reads as a static lookup despite requiring date/time/lat/long), leaving the purpose slightly ambiguous.

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 condition, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named despite dozens of wellness siblings. The agent is left to infer that this should be called after or alongside a natal chart calculation.

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