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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the fact that this is a cursor-friendly alias of astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_zodiacal_decans, which is genuinely useful, but the remaining bracket lines (endpoint, required fields) are operational metadata rather than tool-specific behavior.

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 definition is short and front-loads the subject before the bracketed metadata, with no padding sentences. The structure is scannable, though the opening line carries very little information relative to the space the bracket block occupies.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 15-parameter endpoint with 33% schema coverage, the description supplies no explanation of what 'attributions' means, no usage context, and no disambiguation from the many adjacent Hellenistic decan/zodiacal tools, leaving real gaps an agent would face.

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%, with 15 parameters and no explanation of city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, or houseSystem beyond bare enums/defaults. The description's only parameter content is '[Required: date, time, latitude, longitude],' which merely repeats what the schema's required array already states, so it does not 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 the resource (zodiacal decans) and adds 'with attributions,' but it has no verb and largely restates the title 'Zodiacal Decans.' It does nothing to distinguish this Greenbaum decans endpoint from close siblings such as astroway_hellenistic_hand_decanic_rulers or astroway_hellenistic_greenbaum_dodekatemoria.

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 call this tool versus alternatives, and no named sibling for disambiguation. The '[Required: ...]' and '[Cost: ...]' brackets convey invocation mechanics, not usage guidance, so an agent gets no help deciding whether this or a neighboring Hellenistic technique fits.

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