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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (ranked effects, domain, weighting, citation) and multi-language support. Does not explicitly state read-only nature or potential rate limits, but as a search tool the behavioral profile is mostly clear.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outputs, followed by a necessary usage instruction. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input types, and key return fields (ranked effects, weighting, citation). Could optionally detail pagination or ordering, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the corpus and citation requirement but doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'default 10' for limit, 'restrict to one domain' for domain).

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches a specific corpus (Jeeva Jyotish) by keyword or question, returns ranked effects with domain, weighting, and citation. This verb+resource definition is distinct from sibling tools that handle factors, placements, yogas, etc.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for searching effects by keyword/question. Provides a 'must do' instruction about citing the source. Lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings, but the context of search vs. direct lookups is implied.

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