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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact result shape, the computation of rupas and strength_ratio, the threshold interpretation ('above 1 means the house meets the strength threshold'), and the explicit statement that no interpretation is included. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 composed of four tightly packed sentences: purpose, key structure, field semantics, and a behavioral caveat. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes to the agent's ability to invoke and understand the result.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully carries the responsibility of explaining the return value. It precisely defines keys ('House 1' through 'House 12'), the three fields per house, units, and the meaning of strength_ratio. Combined with the annotations and complete input schema, an agent can both call this tool and correctly interpret the response without ambiguity.

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 100%, and every parameter has a rich description, including the optional role of place and the gender rule for yogas. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it correctly rests at the baseline of 3.

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: 'Return the Bhava Bala (strength of the 12 houses/bhavas), labelled by house.' It goes on to specify the exact output keys and fields, making it unmistakable what this tool does. The phrase 'Data only — no interpretation is added' further distinguishes it from interpretive astrology tools among its siblings.

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 gives clear context about what the tool returns and explicitly says no interpretation is added, which hints at when to use it. However, it never mentions alternatives or when NOT to use it—particularly relevant given the many sibling bala tools like get_shad_bala, get_vimsopaka_bala, and get_other_bala. No explicit routing or exclusion criteria are provided.

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