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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds non-annotation context: cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the POST endpoint. However it says nothing about response shape, latency, or failure modes beyond what annotations give, so it sits at the baseline-plus level.

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?

The bracket-tag layout is front-loaded and scannable, with the technique name first and metadata after. No prose padding, though the alias line is the only content that isn't derivable from structured fields or the endpoint path.

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?

With 15 parameters, 33% schema coverage, and no parameter explanation in the description, the definition is thin for the tool's complexity. The output schema handles return values and annotations handle safety, but the large block of undocumented parameters leaves the agent guessing about inputs like ayanamsa, house system, and compact mode.

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, so the description carries a heavier burden. It merely restates the four required params (date, time, latitude, longitude) already flagged as required in the schema, and adds nothing about the undocumented params (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId). It fails to compensate for the 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?

States a specific named technique (temple-house assignments) and attributes it to the Greenbaum tradition, which distinguishes it from the Brennan/Hand/Schmidt Hellenistic siblings. The parenthetical alias note clarifies its relationship to `astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_temple_doctrine`, preventing duplicate calls. It stops short of saying what the output actually contains, but the purpose is identifiable.

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 statement of when to reach for this technique versus other Hellenistic tools (dodekatemoria, zodiacal decans, quality of time). The alias note implies 'either this or the canonical name', but that is routing hygiene, not usage guidance. An agent gets no condition that selects this tool over its many siblings.

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