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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it is AI-generated rather than template-based, it computes the natal chart, detects transit events, and accounts for planetary motion between week start and week end. It omits operational traits such as latency/cost of the AI generation and error behavior when birth data is invalid, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Header-labeled sections (WHEN TO USE / WHAT IT DOES / RETURNS / NEXT) front-load the purpose and make scanning easy. It is slightly verbose for a tool definition, but each block carries distinct routing or behavioral information, so little is wasted.

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?

RETURNS is documented and an output schema also exists, so return-shape coverage is adequate, and routing/alternatives are thoroughly handled. However, with 9 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the central birth-data parameter semantics ambiguous, which is a real gap for a required-4-parameter tool.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never states that year/month/day/hour/minute/latitude/longitude/timezone_offset are birth date-time and birthplace coordinates (versus the target week), nor what user_name or the timezone default affect, leaving the agent to infer the mapping from 'Computes the birth chart' 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate an in-depth, chart-aware weekly horoscope') and immediately differentiates it from 'one-line rashifal predictions' produced by sibling tools like get_daily_rashifal. The WHAT IT DOES section names the exact inputs it operates on (natal placements, transits), so an agent can tell it apart from the deterministic transit and daily horoscope siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE section describes the user intent that selects this tool ('detailed weekly guidance that accounts for their specific birth chart and this week's exact transits'). It names the alternative explicitly ('Use get_weekly_transit_events for just the deterministic events') and contrasts against one-line rashifal predictions, so both the positive and negative routing conditions are covered.

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