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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful context by disclosing the output shape (three remedies with mantra/jap count/day/offering/daan plus granth reference) and the provenance caveat that remedies come from the texts, not AI-generated.

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?

Three sentences, well front-loaded: purpose first, optional-input behavior second, provenance note last. No filler, though the provenance sentence could be folded in more tersely.

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 usefully describes the return (three attributed remedies with their components), and the input parameters are fully covered by the schema. It stops short of noting that the output varies with the running dasha/afflictions, but is otherwise sufficient to invoke correctly.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema by explaining that omitting 'grah' yields three remedies while passing it scopes to one planet, but gives no format or count detail for the enum input itself. 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+resource: it computes classical remedies (upay) from the birth chart, and describes the mechanism (finds weak/afflicted grahas and running Mahadasha-Antardasha). This clearly separates it from siblings like weak_planet or planet_strength, which diagnose but don't return remedies.

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?

Gives usage for the optional 'grah' parameter (pass one graha to get its remedies), which implies how to narrow results, but never states when to choose this tool over diagnostic siblings such as weak_planet, dosha_check, or gemstone_check, nor any exclusions.

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