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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's main job is to reveal output behavior. It does this well by listing every response key, stating that values are zodiac signs, and clarifying that no interpretation is added. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The core action is stated first, followed by a compact enumeration of all output keys and a final clarifying note about interpretation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema present, the description compensates by fully enumerating the return keys and their value type. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of a sibling-tool pointer, though the scope of 'all nine grahas plus Ascendant' mostly resolves that 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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific guidance, but it doesn't need to because each parameter already has a clear schema description with examples.

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 a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('graha arudhas'), and precisely enumerates all ten output keys plus their value semantics. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_chandra_arudhas or get_surya_arudhas by stating it covers the Ascendant and all nine grahas.

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 phrase 'Data only — no interpretation is added' implies this is for raw astrological data rather than interpreted readings, and the 'each of the nine grahas' wording indicates broad coverage. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_arudha_padas, get_chandra_arudhas, or get_surya_arudhas.

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