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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: exactly four schemes are returned, each value is a multi-line string with amsa name, contributing vargas, and score out of 20, and the tool deliberately adds no interpretation. This goes beyond what annotations 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact yet complete breakdown of the return format and an illustrative example. Every sentence adds necessary information without filler, making the description long but appropriately dense for the complexity of the output.

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, the description fully carries the burden of explaining the return value. It specifies the four schemes, the planet set, the exact string template, an example, the score scale, and the data-only nature. An agent can reliably predict the output structure without additional documentation.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics, but given the complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool returns Vimsopaka Bala scores, specifies the exact output structure (four weighting schemes, planet mappings, string format), and gives a concrete example. It is unambiguous and specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling bala tools like get_shad_bala or get_vaiseshikamsa_bala.

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?

Usage context is implied: use when Vimsopaka Bala scores are wanted. The 'Data only — no interpretation is added' line gives some decision-relevant context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria.

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