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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: a 12-month sunset date tied to the /v1 stability policy, a 10-credit cost tier, and a data-quality caveat (RED, oral tradition, no canonical reference).

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?

Deprecation is stated three times (title, opening sentence, trailing footer), which is redundant and displaces the actual purpose sentence to the end. The content is not bloated, but the structure is repetitive rather than front-loaded with the operative information.

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 explanation, and the deprecation lifecycle is thoroughly disclosed. Gaps remain around what Djamaspa actually computes and when, if ever, an agent should still call it, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 67% and the description contributes no parameter meaning whatsoever, adding nothing about date, fields, or precision beyond the schema. With partial coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 'date' parameter, so it does not reach the baseline 3.

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 core sentence is 'Calculate Djamaspa planetary positions for date,' which supplies a verb and resource, but 'Djamaspa' is undefined jargon with no indication of what these positions represent, leaving the purpose only semi-clear. The purpose statement is also buried beneath three separate deprecation notices rather than front-loaded.

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?

It effectively signals when NOT to use the tool ('Avoid using,' 'Migrate to broader /reference endpoints or remove the dependency'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it does not name a concrete alternative tool or explain a scenario in which this tool is still the correct choice before the sunset.

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