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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that this is a limited free view lacking timing windows and remedies — which warns the agent the response is partial. It says nothing about accuracy caveats or rate limits.

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-loaded with the core purpose, which is good, but the question list duplicates the schema enum verbatim (including Hinglish glosses like 'shadi kab hogi', 'santan') and the closing line is promotional rather than informative. Several phrases do not earn their 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?

With no output schema and 9 params, the description carries more burden, and it does convey what comes back (yog strength with reasoning, granth/saar summary) and that the free view omits timing and remedies. It still leaves the shape of the return (structured vs prose), any pagination, and error conditions unspecified.

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 9 well-documented params, including the constraint that gender is required for marriage_timing and foreign_spouse and why. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: it checks a specific 'yog' from the birth chart and enumerates the seven life questions it supports (government job, foreign settlement, marriage timing, etc.). That enumeration clearly separates it from siblings like dosha_check or kundali_strength, though the surrounding marketing phrasing dilutes the signal slightly.

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 only routing information is 'Free view; full report with timing windows and remedies is on Trikaal Vaani' — a tier/upsell note, not when-to-use guidance. It never tells the agent how to choose this over dosha_check, kundali_strength, or life_reading, nor what prerequisites (e.g. exact birth time) matter.

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