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

The annotations already disclose that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful cost context (20 credits, Tier 2) but does not describe return behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits, and output schema covers results.

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 one front-loaded sentence naming the calculation, followed by compact group and cost metadata. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or waste.

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 rich input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough to understand the tool's output scope. The main missing element is usage guidance relative to other dignity tools, but the group label and precise calculation statement make it largely complete.

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 input schema already documents the body, fields, and precision parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the 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'), resource ('essential dignities'), and the exact five Ptolemaic categories plus debilities. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling dignity tools such as almuten, disposition chains, hyleg, and receptions.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternative dignity tools. The [Group: Dignities & Receptions] label categorizes it but does not explain when an agent should choose this tool over siblings.

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