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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful non-annotation detail: a cap of up to 3 chapters, the returned shape (title, summary paragraph, canonical URL, section links), and that results are served in English or Hindi.

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 verb and resource, then usage condition, then return shape. The example lists are long but they genuinely clarify accepted query styles in two languages, so they earn their space.

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 takes on the responsibility of describing returns and does so adequately, and it covers language handling and result limits. Remaining gaps (empty-result behavior, ranking logic) are minor for a simple two-parameter read tool.

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% and the schema already documents the lang default rule and that question accepts English, Hindi, or Hinglish, so the description largely restates structured data. The query examples add a little signal about expected phrasing and granularity, but no new parameter constraints.

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 and resource ("Finds AstroCalc's plain-language guide chapters") plus the exact class of question it serves, illustrated with six real query examples including Hinglish. The phrase "general questions that need no birth data" implicitly separates it from birth-chart siblings such as explain_dasha, full_chart, and kundli_milan.

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 a clear when-to-use rule: general astrology questions needing no birth data, where a readable source page helps. It stops short of naming the sibling tools to use instead when birth data or computation is required, so the alternative routing is left to inference.

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