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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and a closed-world operation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely new context in the pricing line (10 credits, Tier 1) and the group tag, but says nothing about computation prerequisites or what 'assignments' produce.

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 text is short, front-loaded, and every element (substance line, group, cost, alias) is a distinct fact with no filler. It is efficient, though the efficiency partly reflects that little substantive information was included.

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?

For a 15-parameter astrological computation tool, the description omits what the doctrine output contains, how the required time/place inputs drive the result, and when the tool applies. An output schema does exist, which excuses not restating return values, but the input and selection guidance remain too thin.

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?

The schema has 15 parameters with only 33% description coverage, yet the description mentions no parameter at all. The required date/time/latitude/longitude contract and the sidereal options (ayanamsa, zodiacType) go undiscussed, leaving the description unable 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?

The description names a specific resource (temple-house assignments) and attributes it to the Greenbaum tradition, which helps distinguish it from the Brennan/Schmidt/Hand Hellenistic siblings. However, 'temple-house assignments' is never explained, so an agent that lacks domain knowledge cannot tell what is actually computed or returned. It is a labeled purpose rather than a described one.

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 alternatives. The only routing information is the note that it is an alias for astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_temple_doctrine, which tells the agent the two are equivalent but not which one to pick or in what situation the doctrine applies.

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