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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, which is genuinely useful for budgeting but minimal. It does not say whether the computation depends on the natal chart or the transit moment, which matters for a lunation tool.

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?

Very terse and front-loaded: purpose first, then group, cost, and alias, each on its own bracket line. Every element carries information and nothing is padded, though the extreme brevity is as much under-specification as concision.

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 astrological calculation with an output schema, the description omits the context an agent needs to call it well: what inputs drive the classification, whether it needs a chart or just a moment, and how it relates to its canonical alias. The output schema spares it from explaining return values, but that is the only gap it is excused from.

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 adds nothing about any of them. The four required parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude) and the sidereal/tropical and house-system choices are left entirely to the schema, with the ayanamsa and timezone semantics undocumented in the description.

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?

States the resource ('8-phase lunation classification') with a concrete taxonomy hint, but the verb is nominalized and there is no differentiation from siblings such as astroway_psyr_cycles_of_becoming or astroway_psyr_personality_keynote. The alias note tells the agent this duplicates astroway_psychological_modern_rudhyar_lunation_phase, which is useful routing information but not a statement of what the tool computes.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives among the many Rudhyar/Greene/Arroyo psychological siblings. The agent is told the group and the credit cost but not the condition under which this tool (versus its canonical twin or the other Rudhyar tools) should be selected.

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