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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description does add genuinely useful operational context the annotations lack: an explicit 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the POST endpoint. It says nothing about precision of results or what the computation covers, though.

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 bracketed metadata format is compact and front-loads the tool term, and the cost line is worth its space. However, the '[Required: ...]' line is pure duplication of the schema and the block contains no explanatory prose at all, so brevity here is achieved by omission rather than by tight writing.

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 in the description. Even accounting for that, a 15-parameter astrological computation tool with no statement of what it computes, no differentiation from near-identical siblings, and undocumented optional parameters is not complete enough for reliable selection or invocation.

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?

Only the four required parameters are listed, which merely repeats the schema's 'required' array. With 15 parameters and 33% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the optional parameters such as cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem and the compact-mode fields, and it explains none of them.

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 is essentially a restatement of the name and title: 'Equinoctial contra-antiscia' names no verb, no output, and no scope of computation. The one distinguishing word, 'equinoctial', is left unexplained, so an agent cannot tell what is actually being calculated.

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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives, despite siblings like astroway_helg_contra_antiscia, astroway_helg_antiscia_hellenistic, and astroway_aspects_antiscia that an agent must choose between. The '[Group: Hellenistic: Greenbaum tradition]' tag gives weak routing context but no selection criteria.

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