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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return content (short label plus what each state means for the graha's results) and the three system groups, which helps the agent format the expected output even without an output schema.

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 key purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded and clear. However, the final sentence, 'Avastha meaning API, Baladi avastha, Jagradadi, Deeptadi, planetary state Vedic astrology,' reads like keyword stuffing and adds no value for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 that this is an optional-parameter, read-only reference list with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the three groups of states, the intended comp, and the optional system filter. It stops short of describing output structure or error behavior, but those are not critical for this simple tool.

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% for lang, system, and compact, so the schema already fully documents the parameters. The description only echoes the system filtering option and adds no new parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides.

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 title and first sentence both clearly state the action and scope: 'List all 17 avastha states' and 'Reference list of every avastha.' The description also names each classical system, so the tool's purpose is explicit and distinct from sibling reference endpoints like 'get_vedic_astrology_avasthas_id'.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use it to turn the bare state names a birth chart returns into readable output, filtered by system if you only need one.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the _id sibling as an alternative for getting a single avastha.

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