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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful billing context (100 credits, Tier 4) and scope conciseness, but does not disclose credit deduction timing, latency, or preconditions beyond what the schema covers.

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 compact sentences put the purpose and scope first, followed by terse Group and Cost brackets. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given the rich input schema and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, group, and cost adequately. It could be more complete about prerequisites or AI-call behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the body, fields, and precision parameters thoroughly. The description adds domain framing around 'planet+sign+house' but no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('AI interpretation of a specific planet+sign+house combination') and scopes it to the placement only, which distinguishes it from broader natal or synastry interpretations. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives it differs from.

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 'focused on the placement only' implies usage for a single planet+sign+house reading, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as interpret_natal or interpret_element.

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