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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds two genuinely useful operational facts not in the annotations: the tradition grouping and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost. It says nothing, however, about what the response contains or how heavy the computation is.

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 two bracketed tag lines are compact and front-loaded, and there is zero filler. But brevity here is achieved by omission rather than efficiency — the whole payload is one noun phrase plus metadata, so it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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. However, for a 15-parameter astrological computation with 33% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without any basis for choosing zodiacType, ayanamsa, houseSystem, or a Schmidt-specific reading, and gives no hint of the concepts (aspect classes) it produces.

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 is expected to compensate and does not. It says nothing about the required date/time/latitude/longitude, the sidereal vs tropical switch (zodiacType, ayanamsa), house system codes, or whether Schmidt's method imposes any constraint on those inputs.

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?

"Aspect classes per Schmidt" is essentially a restatement of the tool name (Aspectual Typology) with an author attribution tacked on. It names a resource but no verb and no scope, so an agent cannot tell what is actually computed or how this differs from the near-identical sibling astroway_hels_aspectual_typology or other Schmidt tools such as sect_classes and stations_and_phases.

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 at all: no statement of what input conditions this tool is appropriate for, no comparison against the many other Hellenistic aspect/dignity tools, and no exclusions. The group tag "Hellenistic: Schmidt tradition" is metadata, not usage guidance.

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