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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: the endpoint path and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which lets an agent budget before calling. It still says nothing about auth or failure modes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 carries the whole purpose, followed by short bracketed metadata lines for group, endpoint and cost. No filler or repetition, though the metadata block is largely boilerplate that could be trimmed.

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 return values need not be explained, and the input schema is thorough. For a specialized Hellenistic calculation the description is minimally viable: it never notes what inputs are required for a valid Hyleg/Alcocoden determination or any limitations of the method, leaving that entirely to 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% and the nested birth-data schema documents date/time/coordinates, timezone, houseSystem and the compact-mode fields in detail. The description contributes no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus two named resources (Hyleg/apheta, Alcocoden) with brief glosses of each, and pins the method to traditional Hellenistic practice. This clearly separates it from the other dignity siblings (almuten, essential dignities, receptions), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many dignity/calculation siblings. The Group tag and POST endpoint imply context but give the agent nothing actionable about selecting this tool over astroway_dignities_almuten or astroway_dignities_essential_dignities.

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