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 structurally. The description adds the non-obvious cost context (20 credits, Tier 2), which is genuinely useful for planning, but says nothing about computation dependencies or output shape.

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 defining the computation plus two compact metadata tags. No filler, no repetition of schema content.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and inputs need no restatement. For a deterministic read-only computation this is close to sufficient; only the missing sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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%, including a rich description of the nested birth-data object, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The tool description adds no parameter meaning of its own, which is the baseline expectation here.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Almuten Figuris') and defines the concept precisely as the planet with the highest essential dignity score across key chart positions. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like astroway_dignities_essential_dignities or astroway_dignities_hyleg, which operate on overlapping dignity concepts.

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 gives no indication of when to choose this tool over its dignity siblings (essential_dignities, receptions, disposition_chains, hyleg), nor any prerequisites such as needing a full natal chart with houses. Only the group tag hints at domain.

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