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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds non-annotation context: the POST endpoint, the required-field set, and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which an agent needs for budgeting. It does not mention rate limits, latency, or failure modes.

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?

The bracketed metadata block is compact, front-loaded, and easy to scan, with no filler sentences. The trade-off is that terseness is achieved by omitting explanatory content rather than by tight prose, but the structure itself is clean.

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 annotations cover the safety profile; the cost and endpoint metadata round out the operational picture. However, for a 15-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description leaves an agent without guidance on the sidereal/house-system options that materially change the result, so it is only minimally complete.

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?

With 15 parameters and only ~33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only lists the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude), which the schema already marks as required. Optional but consequential params like `ayanamsa`, `houseSystem`, `zodiacType`, `fields`, and `precision` receive no guidance in the description beyond what partial schema descriptions provide.

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's only prose is "Parental imagos analysis," which essentially restates the title "Greene: Parental Imagos" rather than defining what the analysis computes or returns. It does add one differentiating fact — that it is a cursor-friendly alias of `astroway_psychological_modern_greene_parental_imagos` — which helps an agent recognize the canonical sibling, but the core 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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many other psychological/Modern Psychological siblings (e.g., `astroway_psyg_archetypal_figures`, `astroway_psyg_saturn_shadow`) or the canonical long-named twin. The alias note implies interchangeability with the canonical tool but gives no selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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