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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destrinktiveHint=false, so there is no mutation risk. The description adds valuable behavioral context by saying the lookup returns the owning system, a short label, and what the state means for the graha's results, so the agent haz a good forecast of the result shape.

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 entire description is two sentences, front-loads the operation, and contains no wasted words or paraphrase of the schema fields. It mentions exactly the semantic link an agent needs.

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 only one required parameter and no output schema, this description describes the tool's returned fields and semantics, including how to derive the input from a chart. The observed lack of output schema is appropriately compensated by a concrete statement and behavioral overview.

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 schema covers all 3 parametrs and explains the `id` enum, so the baseline is 3. The description reafirms the parameter further by explaining that `id` is a camelCase, lower-cased state name taken from birth chart fields, which is genuinely useful when mapping a chart's output to a lookup.

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 states a concrete action ('look up a single avastha state') with a specific resource and key format ('by its slug'))). It also clearly positions this as a single-item lookup versus the sibling plural list endpoint ('get_vedic_astrology_avasthas''), so an agent can distinguish it without opening sibling schemas.

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 a clear trigger for use: the slug is what a birth chart returns in `awastha`, `jagradadi` or `deeptadi`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list which tools are not used for, so it has clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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