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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the corpus size (70+ calculators), multi-language coverage, and that it returns ranked pages with a one-line purpose rather than performing a calculation. It omits result counts, ranking behavior, and what an empty match looks like.

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 capability before the when-to-use clause, and the example list is compact. The long parenthetical example run makes the first sentence slightly dense, but every element 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 only two well-documented parameters, no nested objects, and safe annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, and it describes the return shape despite no output schema. It could be stronger by noting how many results come back or that unmatched queries yield nothing.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds value through concrete sample queries ('government job yoga', 'gajakesari yoga', 'vastu') that show the expected granularity and topical style of the query string. The language parameter is fully covered by the schema's enum, so nothing needs compensating there.

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?

The description uses a specific verb (searches) and resource (VedicDost's 70+ free astrology calculators) and clarifies the return form ('best matching pages with a one-line purpose'). It hints at differentiation via 'a topic not covered by the other tools' but never names a specific sibling, so an agent must still infer boundaries against tools like get_kundli or check_dosha.

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?

'Use when the user wants a specific calculator or a topic not covered by the other tools' gives a clear trigger and effectively frames this as a discovery/fallback tool. It stops short of naming which siblings cover which topics or stating when NOT to use it, leaving the boundary for the agent to work out.

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