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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds a cost signal (10 credits, Tier 1) and group membership, which is genuinely useful for an agent budgeting calls, but it discloses nothing about computation, latency, or how the psychological synthesis is derived.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the one-line purpose followed by group, cost, and alias metadata. Nothing is padded, though the metadata block takes up a large share of an otherwise minimal description.

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?

With 15 parameters, 4 required geotemporal inputs, and no output explanation needed (an output schema exists), the definition is still thin: it never says what must be supplied, how to choose among the enum-heavy options, or what distinguishes this report from its Greene siblings. An agent could invoke it, but only by guessing at configuration.

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 it does not mention a single input. It offers no guidance on zodiacType, ayanamsa, or houseSystem selection, which matters for a psychological report where the sidereal/tropical choice changes the output.

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 says it returns 'archetypal patterns in the chart per Liz Greene,' which is a specific resource with an attribution, but it largely restates the title 'Greene: Archetypal Figures' without saying what an archetypal figure actually is or which chart factors produce them. The alias note does clarify its relationship to the full canonical name, so it isn't fully tautological, but the purpose remains vague.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison against the many Greene/Rudhyar/Arroyo siblings (individuation_path, lunar_myth, saturn_shadow, etc.). The only routing help is the parenthetical alias note pointing to the canonical tool name, which is a naming fact rather than usage guidance.

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