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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description does add genuinely useful behavioral context that annotations cannot: the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the Modern Psychological grouping. It says nothing about compute time, failure modes, or what happens with incomplete birth data.

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 purpose, then group, cost, and alias. No filler sentences and the credit cost is easy to scan. The parenthetical alias line is long but does real work for cursor-based name matching.

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 no prose, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 15-parameter natal-chart calculation the description leaves the agent unable to judge when this arc is the right analytical lens versus a sibling Greene tool, and it adds no input guidance where schema coverage is thin.

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 no parameter meaning at all. Several parameters (city, date, name, time, latitude, longitude, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId) are undocumented in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a tool whose correctness depends on precise birth-time and location input.

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 'Individuation arc per natal chart' names a distinct resource and its input source, so the agent knows it is a Greene-school psychological calculation rather than a raw ephemeris. However, there is no verb, no explanation of what the 'individuation arc' actually contains, and nothing that distinguishes it from the many sibling Greene tools (archetypal_figures, lunar_myth, parental_imagos, saturn_shadow) beyond the label.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing hints among the large set of psychological-modern siblings. The only operational note is that this is an alias for astroway_psychological_modern_greene_individuation_path, which helps with name resolution but not with tool selection.

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