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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational facts: a per-call cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) and the fact that this is an alias of the canonical Greene endpoint, which matters for budgeting and for avoiding duplicate calls. It stops short of describing latency or any special chart assumptions.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose and then uses compact bracketed metadata with zero filler; the alias note is short and placed last. It is lean, though arguably too lean for a 15-parameter tool — the terseness shades into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 the alias/endpoint/cost metadata is present. However, for a complex 15-parameter chart tool, the description gives no sense of what distinguishes the output from its many siblings, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.

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, and the description contributes nothing beyond restating the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema and required array already supply. Parameters like houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId and cosmogram are left with no guidance in either place.

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 concrete verb+resource: it derives 'archetypal patterns in the chart' using Liz Greene's framework, which distinguishes it from the Arroyo and Rudhyar siblings and from the other Greene tools (lunar myth, parental imagos, Saturn shadow). The phrase 'archetypal patterns' is still somewhat abstract about what is actually produced, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-selection guidance is given. The group tag 'Modern Psychological' and the author name imply a context, but the description never tells the agent how to choose between this and astroway_psyg_individuation_path, lunar_myth, or the canonical astroway_psychological_modern_greene_archetypal_figures beyond a bare equivalence note.

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