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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot carry: it is a metered call at 10 credits (Tier 1), and it is an alias rather than a distinct operation. It does not discuss response shape, but an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded single-line purpose followed by compact bracketed metadata (group, cost, alias). Every line carries information and there is no filler; the alias parenthetical is slightly meta but saves an agent from double-invoking the canonical tool.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not describe return values, and the annotations cover safety. What is still missing for a specialized 15-parameter Hellenistic calculation is any indication of what the nine categories contain or what input precision the technique expects, leaving the agent reliant on the schema and outside knowledge.

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% across 15 parameters, and the description contributes nothing about any parameter — no mention of date/time format, coordinates, timezone handling, ayanamsa, house system, or the `fields`/`precision` compact-mode options. The four required parameters are largely self-explanatory from their names and patterns, but the description does not compensate for the documented coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific technique (planetary bonification/maltreatment conditions per Valens) and states its scope (9 categories), and the alias line ties it explicitly to the canonical `astroway_hellenistic_brennan_bonifications_maltreatments` sibling. It is distinguishable from the surrounding Hellenistic/Brennan tools, though 'planet conditions' remains somewhat jargon-dependent for an agent unfamiliar with the doctrine.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as dignities, joys of planets, or the other Brennan-tradition tools. The '[Group: Hellenistic: Brennan tradition]' tag implies context, and the alias note tells the agent this tool is interchangeable with its canonical sibling, which is a partial routing signal rather than real usage guidance.

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