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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include enter/exact/leave dates, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about precision loss, orb defaults, sampling step behavior, or the 100-credit cost implications beyond the tier label.

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?

One tight sentence with the core computation front-loaded, followed by the required group and cost metadata. Nothing is wasted, though the single sentence is arguably too sparse for a 9-parameter tool.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits how maxOrb, stepDays, aspectAngles and precision shape the returned timeline. The output schema covers return values, but the input side leaves an agent guessing at numeric ranges and defaults.

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 22% across 9 parameters, so the description carries much of the burden and fails to. maxOrb, stepDays, aspectAngles, precision and planet1Ids/planet2Ids are undocumented in both places; the description only vaguely references 'two specific planets' and a 'date range' without parameters actually named startDate/endDate.

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 and resource: calculating when two planets form an exact aspect over a date range. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not differentiate itself from similarly named siblings such as astroway_calendar_aspects or astroway_aspects_aspect_bar, so an agent still has to infer which to pick.

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 explains what the tool computes but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name any alternative tool. The date-range and two-planet framing weakly implies usage but provides no routing information relative to the many other aspect tools.

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