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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the useful behavioral note that no interpretation is added and describes the output shape, but it does not cover auth needs, rate limits, error behavior, or other richer context beyond the annotations.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return structure and a scope note. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated or padded.

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 100% parameter description coverage and clear safety annotations, the description appropriately focuses on the missing output documentation by specifying the V1–V12 keys and sign/longitude values. It lacks usage context relative to siblings, but otherwise provides what an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 all seven parameters including date, time, latitude, longitude, timezone, place, and gender are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('varnada lagnas for the houses'), then clarifies the exact return structure with keys V1–V12 and their sign/longitude values. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling astrology tools that return different chart components.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'Data only — no interpretation is added' describes output scope, not when to select this tool over siblings such as get_special_lagnas or get_sphutas.

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