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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully adds the return shape ('every planet-to-planet crossing with its coordinates') and a cost figure (50 credits, Tier 3) that is not present in the annotations. It says nothing about latency, pagination, or how many crossings to expect.

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 tight sentences: the definition and scope lead, and the return statement follows, with group/cost metadata appended compactly. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence restates part of the first.

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 no further explanation, and the safety profile is carried by annotations. However, for a tool with 15 parameters and 33% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough guidance on which inputs matter, which is the main completeness gap.

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 only 33%, and the description supplies no parameter guidance at all — not for the four required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude) nor for the many optional astrological switches (zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram). With a 15-parameter schema this is a significant uncompensated gap; an agent cannot tell which options actually affect paran output.

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 concrete definition of the resource — 'crossing points of two A*C*G lines' where 'two planets were simultaneously angular' — and states the return content. The phrase 'planet-to-planet crossing' implicitly separates it from the sibling astroway_geo_parans_star, but that sibling is never named, so the differentiation requires inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus astroway_geo_acg, astroway_geo_acg_best_places, or astroway_geo_parans_star, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only implied by the '[Group: Astro-Geography]' tag.

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