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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral value by stating the return shape (up to 5 references, granth/chapter/shloka number plus a 1-2 line summary) and an important limitation: full shloka text and translations are NOT returned. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only search that is minor.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the return contract. The long enumeration of source texts is somewhat verbose but serves to signal corpus breadth. No filler sentences; every part is informative.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing returns (up to 5 refs with granth/chapter/shloka and summary, and explicitly that full text is excluded). For a 3-parameter read-only search this is nearly complete; only explicit routing against siblings is missing.

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 schema already documents query, limit and granth in detail. The description adds the 'by meaning' (semantic) nature of the query and the multilingual support (Hindi/English/Hinglish), which is useful context, but it does not extend syntax or format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (searches) and resource (Trikaal Vaani's classical Jyotish library) with the key differentiator 'by meaning' and names the corpus it draws from. This clearly separates it from sibling calculation/report tools like janam_kundali or dasha_timeline, since it retrieves classical references rather than computing charts.

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 by the resource scope (look up classical shlokas/rules/remedies), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance — e.g. it never says when to prefer this over blog_search or upay_calculator. No exclusions or routing conditions are given.

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