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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the method tradition and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which lets an agent budget calls. It says nothing about dependencies on the body chart data or what the computation requires, so it is additive but not rich.

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 tight sentence carries the verb, resource and method, with the group and cost tags appended compactly. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the metadata lines add little beyond classification.

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?

With an output schema present the return values need no explanation, and the input schema is fully documented, so an agent can technically call it. The remaining gap is routing: nothing explains when hyleg/alcocoden analysis is the right dignity tool versus its siblings.

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 body, fields and precision in detail (including timezone handling and compact mode). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the exact resources (Hyleg/apheta, giver of life; Alcocoden, indicator of lifespan) plus the method (traditional Hellenistic). It is precise about what it computes, but never distinguishes itself from sibling dignity tools like astroway_dignities_almuten or astroway_dignities_essential_dignities.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. The [Group: Dignities & Receptions] and cost tags are metadata, not usage guidance. An agent has no signal for choosing this over almuten or disposition_chains.

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