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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond structured data: the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the alias equivalence. It says nothing about what the analysis returns, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 subject and followed by group, cost, and alias metadata; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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, 4-required astrological computation tool with 33% schema coverage and a rich sibling set, this description is far too thin. An agent gets the cost and the alias but no sense of inputs, expected analysis content, or how to choose it over the many adjacent psychological tools; only the output schema saves it from a 1.

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 description contributes zero parameter information despite schema description coverage of only 33% across 15 parameters. Required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude) and undocumented fields (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId) have no explanation in either the schema or the description, so the description fails to 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?

"Saturn-as-shadow integration work" essentially restates the title "Greene: Saturn Shadow" without saying what the tool produces or does (a report? a chart? an interpretation?). The alias note tells the agent this duplicates `astroway_psychological_modern_greene_saturn_shadow`, which is identity information rather than purpose, and no verb+resource pairing is established.

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 guidance relative to the many Greene siblings (archetypal_figures, individuation_path, lunar_myth, parental_imagos) or the psyg/psya/psyr variants. The only routing hint is the alias parenthetical, which implies the two names are interchangeable but does not say when to prefer one or when this report is the right choice at all.

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