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. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the endpoint, the 10-credit cost tier, and the required inputs. It stops short of describing the return content or any constraints on interpretation, and the alias note is a packaging detail rather than 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 block is short, bracketed, and front-loaded with the one-line purpose before logistics. Each line carries information, though the alias parenthetical is marginally useful metadata.

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 the safety profile. However, for a 15-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage, the description leaves the purpose ambiguous relative to its near-identical sibling and provides no differentiation, which is the main gap an agent needs filled.

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 merely restates the four required fields already marked in the schema and adds no meaning for undocumented params such as `cosmogram`, `zodiacType`, `houseSystem`, or `ayanamsaId`.

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 phrase 'Element distribution and integration' names the resource loosely but blurs it with the sibling `astroway_psya_element_integration`, which the description does not distinguish itself from. It never says whether this returns a weighted tally, a narrative, or a chart, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over the very similarly named neighbors.

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 mention of any alternative, despite the presence of close siblings like `astroway_psya_element_integration` and `astroway_psychological_modern_arroyo_element_integration`. The block only supplies endpoint, required inputs, and cost, which are logistics rather than usage selection.

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