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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context (POST endpoint, 20-credit Tier 2 cost) but says nothing about return structure, orb defaults, or computation edge cases.

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 front-loaded sentence states the operation and defines both aspect types; the metadata block is terse and structured. No wasted prose.

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 stateless calculation tool with a complete input schema, a published output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what the structured fields do not: cost and endpoint. The main remaining gap is the absence of any routing hint among the many sibling aspect tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents date, time, latitude, longitude, orb, fields, and precision in detail. The phrase 'within orb' signals the orb parameter's role but adds no syntax, default, or range information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('calculate parallel and contra-parallel aspects between all planets within orb') and defines both terms inline, so the agent knows exactly what computation is performed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling aspect tools such as antiscia or midpoints, but the named resource ('parallel aspects') is distinctive enough to route correctly.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given; the only added context is grouping, endpoint, and cost. The agent is left to infer that this is the declination-aspect tool versus other aspect families based solely on the name.

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