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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the calculation logic (Lilly's scoring, day/night determination, peregrine flag) and the requirement for lat/lon to determine sect. It is transparent about the planets considered (traditional seven) and the output fields. No side effects or limitations are mentioned, but for a read-only analysis tool this is acceptable.

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 description is a single paragraph that is information-dense but not overly long. It front-loads the main purpose and then details the output. While not broken into sections, it is well-organized and every sentence contributes to understanding. Slightly more structure (e.g., listing output fields) could improve clarity, but it's still effective.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what is returned: sign, essential dignity type, weighted score, peregrine flag, sect, and in-sect status. It covers the key aspects for an astrological dignity tool. However, it does not specify the overall data structure (e.g., array of objects) or mention error conditions.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the rationale for requiring latitude and longitude (to determine day/night chart) and providing context for the zodiac parameter (listing ayanamsas). It also clarifies the significance of the weighted dignity score and peregrine flag, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's primary function: calculating essential dignity and sect for traditional planets. It specifies the output per planet and the methodology (Lilly's weighting), making the purpose immediately understandable and distinct from sibling tools like natal_chart or aspects.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain that this is for traditional planets only, nor when one might prefer using it over general chart tools like natal_chart. The user must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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