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

An existing readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already cover side-effect safety; the description adds meaningful behavioral details such as 22 aspect types, the 5 major/17 minor split, and exact event times via ternary search refinement to the minute. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for output precision.

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 messages are front-loaded and the structure is logical: purpose, behavior, defaults, use cases. However, the list of 17 minor aspects is long, and the final sentence 'Monthly Lunar aspects API, Moon transit calendar, chandra drishti ephemeris, minor lunar aspects' reads like keyword filler rather than earning its place.

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 six optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the main operational needs: what it returns, the level of detail (major/minor aspects), how precision is achieved, and how defaults work. It does not describe the output shape, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the DateTime event list make this acceptable.

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 the parameter baseline is 3. The description adds one valuable parameter-level behavior: omitting year and month produces a rolling/current calendar without a redeploy, which supplements what the schema merely states as defaults. No additional per-parameter semantics are needed beyond the thorough schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Track all lunar aspect events for a given month') and resource ('Moon aspect events with all planets'), which is clear and distinguishes it from non-lunar planetary tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like post_vedic_astrology_aspects_monthly or post_vedic_astrology_aspects, leaving some potential selection ambiguity.

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 clear context for when this is useful: 'Essential for muhurta selection, daily panchang analysis, and chandra gochar predictions.' It also provides the practical tip about omitting year/month to keep a published lunar calendar current. It does not, however, explain when not to use this tool or name an alternative tool for other aspect needs.

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