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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the credit cost (100 credits, Tier 4) and the analytical components (aspects, house activations, Saros series), but does not disclose prerequisites such as required natal birth data. With annotations covering the safety profile, this adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences plus two metadata lines; the purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. The cost line is relevant behavioral context, though the group line is minor.

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?

Purpose and output components are stated, and rich annotations plus a full output schema carry safety and return-value details. However, missing usage guidance and prerequisites (natal birth data required) leave a gap for correct tool selection in a crowded sibling set.

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 body, fields, and precision parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb 'Analyse', resource 'impact of upcoming eclipses on a natal chart', and scope items (aspects to natal planets, house activations, Saros series context) distinguish it from eclipse-listing (calendar_eclipses) and eclipse-path rendering (render_eclipse_path). No sibling tool is named, so it falls short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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, when-not, or alternative tool guidance is provided. The description only states what the analysis contains, leaving the agent to infer context relative to astroway_calendar_eclipses or other geo tools.

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