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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and local (openWorldHint=false). The description adds real value beyond them: the exact scoring factors, the shape of the output (wear verdict + reason, lagna-lord life stone), the full stone list, and the commercial-neutrality disclosure. It stops short of detailing the return structure or edge cases for missing birth time, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and score range, then the deliverables and the stone list. No filler; every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return shape (per-stone score, verdict, reason, lagna-lord life stone), which is what the agent needs. It is close to complete, though the handling of unknown birth time or the optional single-stone filter is not addressed.

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% with all 8 parameters documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or how inputs like the optional 'stone' filter interact with the scoring, leaving semantics entirely to the schema.

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?

States a precise verb (Scores) and resource (all 9 gemstones 0-100) with scope and methodology (functional benefic, Shadbala, dignity, afflictions) plus the verdict it returns. No sibling tool covers gemstones, so the agent can uniquely identify this one.

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?

Usage is implied ('for this exact chart', requiring birth data) but the description never states when to pick this over the birth-chart siblings like janam_kundali, kundali_strength, or planet_strength, nor any exclusions. The only disambiguation is the closing note that it sells no gemstones, which clarifies intent rather than routing.

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