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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the group, which are behavioral facts absent from structured fields, but says nothing about output characteristics or interpretation depth. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

It is tightly sized and front-loads the purpose before the bracketed metadata, with zero filler. The only concern is that the brevity shades into under-specification, but structurally each line earns its place.

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?

For a 15-parameter chart tool with only 33% parameter coverage, the description is far too sparse. Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the definition omits any usage context, parameter guidance, or distinction from the five closely related Greene tools, leaving the agent poorly equipped to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has 15 parameters at only 33% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude) and key options (zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId) are left entirely to the schema, which is itself silent on several of them. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states the resource and dimensions: 'Lunar archetypes by sign and house.' However it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from the many Greene siblings (archetypal_figures, individuation_path, parental_imagos, saturn_shadow) that share the same group. An agent can guess the topic but not what the tool computes or returns relative to those alternatives.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The description supplies only a group tag, a credit cost, and an alias note, none of which tell the agent which condition should select this tool over the other Greene/psychological tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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