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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the contextual detail that it computes a dignity score across key chart positions, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as response format or rate limits.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The additional metadata (group, endpoint, cost) is useful context but slightly dilutes conciseness.

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?

Given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, the schema is rich with 100% coverage, and an output schema exists, the description adequately defines the tool's purpose. It could be more complete with usage guidelines, but it's sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to call it.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-level meaning beyond what's in the schema, which is expected given the high coverage, making a baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Calculate) and names the exact astrological concept (Almuten Figuris), defining it as the planet with the highest essential dignity score across key chart positions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like astroway_dignities_essential_dignities and astroway_dignities_hyleg.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as essential_dignities or hyleg. While the concept definition implies its purpose, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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