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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description adds real value beyond them: the Tier 7 cost (5,000 credits, ~50% of a free monthly budget), a premium user-confirmation warning, and the computation convention (Lahiri ayanamsa, sign-from-Lagna house numbering). Missing is any note on delivery format or latency, hence not a 5.

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 what the report contains, then appends group and cost metadata as bracketed lines that are easy to scan. Two tight paragraphs with no filler; only minor trimming possible.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the report domain, computation convention, and the costly-invocation caveat that an agent most needs. For a generation tool of this complexity, nothing essential 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 60%, so the schema already documents chart, fields, precision, language and whitelabel in detail. The description's only parameter-relevant content is the Lahiri sidereal default, which the schema states anyway. It neither compensates for the uncovered portion nor adds new parameter meaning, 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 specific verb+resource (Lal Kitab report) and enumerates the report's contents: Teva graha placements with Pakka-ghar match, Kismat & Prosperity scores, Rins, and Upayas. That is enough to tell it apart from generic siblings like reports_natal. It never names an adjacent sibling (e.g. reports_vedic_kundli) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 domain (use this when a Lal Kitab report is wanted) and reinforced by the explicit cost instruction to confirm with the user before invoking. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over reports_vedic_kundli or reports_natal, which is the real selection decision an agent faces.

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