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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the cost signal (20 credits, Tier 2), which is genuine behavioral context an agent would not get from the schema. However it discloses nothing about computational behavior, resolution, or precision beyond 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?

Two compact sentences with the core concept front-loaded, followed by brief group and cost tags. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical definition and metadata lines make it slightly more list-like than prose would be.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is usage context and any clarification of the 11 under-documented parameters for a tool that takes 15, leaving an agent able to understand the operation but not confident about invocation choices.

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 33% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the gap. Several parameters (cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, name, city) are left undocumented in both places, and the reader must infer their roles from enum values alone.

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 (Calculate) and a well-defined resource (antiscia and contra-antiscia), and even parenthetically glosses the concept as mirror points along the Cancer/Capricorn axis, plus their aspects to natal planets. This distinguishes it in substance from siblings like midpoints or arabic_parts, though it never names an alternative, so it falls short of 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 description offers no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no alternatives among the many sibling aspect tools. The [Group] and [Cost] tags are metadata, not guidance about selecting this tool over midpoints, parallel_aspects, or fixed_stars.

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