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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by explicitly saying 'Data only — no interpretation is added' and by detailing the entry fields and the comprehensive point coverage. It does not discuss calculation caveats or edge cases, but the annotation burden is already satisfied.

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 front-loaded with the main behavior and then organized into output fields and point coverage. The enumeration is long but necessary to clarify the tool's full scope and differentiate it from specialized siblings. There is no filler; the use of 'etc.' keeps an otherwise exhaustive list manageable.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description does well to explain the return payload fields and the full range of chart points, which is the key information an agent needs. The 'Data only' note also prevents an agent from expecting interpretive prose. Minor gaps, such as not specifying the exact division basis of the amsa calculation, are not critical because the output fields are self-descriptive.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all seven parameters, including formats and optionality, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, but it does not need to compensate because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the amsa (fine sub-division) ruler for every point in the chart.' It goes further by naming the exact output fields and enumerating the point categories, which makes the tool clearly distinct from siblings that focus on single subsets like upagrahas or sphutas.

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 description implies when to use this tool: whenever an amsa ruler is needed across all chart points, including upagrahas, special lagnas, varnada lagnas, and sphutas. However, it never names alternative tools or states when to prefer them, such as get_sphutas or get_upagrahas, so the choice is left to inference.

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