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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the 10-credit Tier 1 cost — but says nothing about computation time, output shape, or prerequisites. Adding the cost signal justifies a 3 rather than lower.

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 and followed by group, cost, and alias routing metadata. Every line is compact, though the alias note is routing housekeeping rather than tool semantics.

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 described, but for a 15-parameter analysis tool the description leaves the agent without any understanding of what the analysis computes, when to select it among ~40 siblings, or meaning for the majority-undocumented parameters.

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%, with 15 parameters and no parameter discussion anywhere in the description. It does not compensate for the undocumented date/time/latitude/longitude inputs, the 25-value houseSystem enum, or the zodiacType choice — all of which the agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 'Parental imagos analysis' names the resource but never says what the tool actually produces or what a 'parental imagos' computation is. It is essentially a restatement of the title, with no verb and no differentiation from the many sibling Greene/Arroyo/Rudhyar analyses beyond the [Group: Modern Psychological] tag.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description supplies cost and group metadata but never tells an agent under what circumstances this analysis should be chosen over siblings like greene_archetypal_figures, greene_lunar_myth, or the psyg alias duplicates.

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