The seventy-two names (Shem HaMephorash)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the names are computed from Exodus 14:19-21 rather than looked up, implying a deterministic derivation, and the cost tier is surfaced. It does not describe response shape, but with an output schema present that is a minor omission.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the resource and its structure, followed by bracketed group/endpoint/cost metadata. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint line duplicates routing information the runtime already knows.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns. It supplies provenance, cardinality (72), per-item structure (five zodiacal degrees) and filtering syntax, which is everything needed to decide to call it — the only blemish is that the advertised filters are not expressible in the 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?

The schema declares zero properties, which would normally give a baseline of 4, but the description advertises query filters (?index, ?longitude) that do not exist as input parameters. That is an actionable mismatch — an agent may attempt to pass filters it cannot supply. The range hints (1..72, 0..360) are informative but land on a phantom parameter.

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 specific resource (the 72 three-letter Shem HaMephorash names) and its payload (each name with its five zodiacal degrees), which is enough to distinguish it from neighbouring Kabbalah siblings like gematria and sephiroth. It does not explicitly say 'list/return', but the content is unambiguous.

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?

It tells the agent how to narrow results via ?index=1..72 or ?longitude=0..360, which implies the use case of looking up a single name or the name governing a degree. It never says when to choose this over astroway_kabbalah_gematria or astroway_kabbalah_sephiroth, and gives no exclusions.

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