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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only listing operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm idempotency or lack of mutations, and it omits any mention of return format or potential delays.

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 a single sentence (12 words) that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It front-loads the verb 'List' and specifies the exact count (14) and context (Jyotish). No extraneous information.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, trivial operation), the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent exactly what is returned—a list of 14 life domains. It could clarify the output format (e.g., names, IDs) but is sufficient for selection.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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's action ('List') and the specific resource ('the 14 Jyotish life domains the effects are organised by'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_factor or search_effects, which perform different tasks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, when to prefer it, or when not to use it. Siblings exist but are not referenced.

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