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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the endpoint, which is useful operational context. It does not describe what the response contains or whether the analysis is deterministic, but with annotations carrying safety the bar is lower.

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 core description is a single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and the exact output. The group/endpoint/cost metadata is compressed into bracketed lines. No wasted prose, though the description is quite short relative to the tool's complexity.

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 the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety. The cost and endpoint are disclosed. However, for a tool that sits among many sibling dignities tools, the description lacks differentiation guidance, and it does not mention that custom terms/decans tables can be supplied to override defaults, which is a meaningful capability present in the schema.

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%, with the body, fields, and precision parameters richly documented, including custom termsData and decansData tables. The description adds essentially no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so the baseline is high. It does not clarify which birth-data fields matter most for dignity calculation.

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 resource (the five Ptolemaic essential dignities plus debilities) for each planet. It enumerates the five dignity types, which is more specific than most siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as astroway_dignities_almuten or astroway_dignities_receptions, which an agent must distinguish among.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated alternative, and no conditions for choosing this over the sibling dignities tools. The grouping tag '[Group: Dignities & Receptions]' and endpoint line imply context but do not tell the agent which sibling to pick. Usage is only implied.

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