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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety behavior is fully covered. The description's added value is the hint that output is a numeric ratio rather than a discrete label, which is genuinely informative but thin. It does not describe units, scale, or how the 'strongest/weakest' are selected.

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 purpose followed by the differentiating output claim. Slightly padded by the marketing-flavored second sentence, but no real waste.

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?

For a computed, read-only astrology tool with a fully documented 7-parameter schema but no output schema, the description conveys enough: the metric, its normalization basis, and the headline results. Missing only output scale/format details, which is a minor gap.

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%, with patterns, ranges, and defaults (e.g. timezone default 5.5, 12:00 convention for unknown birth time) already documented. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb/resource (Shadbala strength of the 7 grahas) and even cites the classical source BPHS Ch.27, plus what it returns: ratio against the classical minimum and strongest/weakest planet. Clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like weak_planet, lagna_bal, or kundali_strength that sound adjacent.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this, weak_planet, or lagna_bal for a strength question; the 'Trikaal Vaani shows the real number' line is branding, not routing guidance.

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