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 useful behavioral context by specifying that the result is raw data with no interpretation and by defining the output contract (keys V2–V12, each with sign and longitude). This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 redundancy. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core action, and the second provides a precise output contract. Every word 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return format precisely. It covers the essential facts an agent needs: what is returned, key names, and value structure. Minor omissions like unit of longitude or ayanamsa convention are not critical for correct invocation, so this is nearly complete.

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 each parameter already has a meaningful description (format, examples, optionality). The tool description does not add any parameter-level semantics, but the schema fully carries that burden. No gap in parameter understanding exists.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the varnada lagnas for the houses.' It also details the output keys (V2–V12) and value structure, which makes the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_special_lagnas, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a boundary: use this tool when raw data is needed rather than interpretive output. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling is mentioned. This is implied usage context, not direct guidance.

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