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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the cost ('20 credits, Tier 2') and the transport endpoint (POST /v1/receptions), which affect whether an agent should call it. It does not describe latency or pagination, but neither is implied for a bounded two-planet-pair scan.

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 sentence of substance plus three short bracketed metadata lines (group, endpoint, cost). Nothing is repeated or padded, and the operative definition is front-loaded ahead of the metadata.

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?

The tool is a computation over birth data; the input schema is exhaustively documented and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. What is missing is a note that required birth data (date, time, latitude, longitude) must be supplied and how this differs from the sibling dignity tools, but the definition is otherwise sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 body schema documents date, time, latitude, longitude, timezone, ayanamsa, houseSystem, plus the compact-mode fields/precision options in detail. The description contributes nothing about any parameter, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Find mutual receptions between planets') and then defines the astronomical condition precisely ('pairs where each planet is in a sign ruled, exalted, or in the dignity of the other'), so an agent knows exactly what output to expect. It does not name or contrast with close siblings such as astroway_dignities_essential_dignities or astroway_dignities_disposition_chains, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The definition explains the underlying concept but never says to prefer this over essential dignities or disposition chains, and no trigger condition (e.g. 'use when the question concerns two planets exchanging sign rulership') is stated.

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