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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat those. It adds context by specifying the workflow dependency, the behavior when planet is omitted ('Omit to get all nine planets'), and points to a full output/error contract. This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 tightly structured and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose. The WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH sections are scannable and each adds distinct value. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 read-only idempotent annotations, optional parameters, and available output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers prerequisites, parameter values, sibling disambiguation, and points to the full output/error contract. No critical contextual gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating the exact allowed planet values (Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Rahu, Ketu) and explaining the omission behavior, which the schema does not fully specify. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns Rudraksha bead recommendations per planet.' It clearly scopes the tool to per-planet bead recommendations and explicitly contrasts it with gemstone and puja tools in the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, making sibling differentiation strong.

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?

The WORKFLOW section explicitly names the prerequisite tool (asterwise_get_natal_chart) and explains why it should be called first: to identify planets needing support. It also names two similar-sounding tools and clarifies why they are not appropriate, giving the agent explicit selection guidance.

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