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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description usefully adds the cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and names the analysis outputs, but with an output schema present the return description is partly redundant and there is no word on auth, caching, or limits.

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?

Two short sentences plus metadata tags, front-loaded with the action and result. No filler, though for a 15-parameter tool the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 needn't be spelled out, and cost is disclosed. However, for a Tier-2 paid tool with 15 parameters and a third of them undocumented, the description leaves the agent without enough input guidance to invoke it confidently.

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 ayanamsa, houseSystem, zodiacType, fields, precision, timezone, or cosmogram. 'Question moment' loosely implies date/time/location but adds almost no semantic value.

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 verb (calculate) and resource (horary chart) plus the distinctive outputs (radicality assessment, significator analysis). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like astroway_horary_diagnostics or astroway_vedic_kp_horary, but the mention of radicality/significator output narrows it meaningfully.

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?

The phrase 'for a question moment' hints at the horary use case, but there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to sibling horary tools. An agent gets no help choosing this over astroway_horary_diagnostics or a plain chart tool.

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