Wealth Cycle (long)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a billing cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) and the POST endpoint, which matter for planning. It says nothing about output depth, time span covered, or computation inputs beyond the required fields.

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 single front-loaded sentence followed by bracketed metadata is tidy with no filler, and the cost/endpoint lines are cheap. But the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline — the space saved is not reallocated to anything an agent needs.

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 13-parameter financial timing tool with an output schema, the description gives no sense of what the Jupiter/Saturn cycle output looks like or how to pick between timezone and timezoneOffset. Nothing is wrong, but the definition is far too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently without reading the full schema.

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 23% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema already marks required, and adds nothing about timezone vs timezoneOffset precedence, ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, or the cosmogram flag.

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 names the astrological concept — a long-cycle wealth archetype keyed to Jupiter (~12y) and Saturn (~29y) returns — which does distinguish it from the sibling astroway_financial_wealth_house. However, no verb or resource is stated ('computes', 'returns', 'charts'), so an agent cannot tell whether this returns a timeline, a chart, or an interpretation.

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, no exclusions, and no named alternative despite a very close sibling (astroway_financial_wealth_house) and dozens of other financial tools. The bracketed lines only expose group, endpoint, required fields and cost — none of which tells the agent when to pick this tool.

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