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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: a concrete credit cost and tier, a premium-budget warning prompting user confirmation, and the compute method (Lahiri ayanamsa, sign-from-Lagna house numbering). This is exactly the kind of cost/side-effect disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 front-loaded sentences covering contents and compute method, followed by a compact bracketed metadata block (group, endpoint, required, cost). No filler; every line carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers contents, compute convention, required parameter, and cost. The main omissions are the output format (PDF/HTML, present only in the title) and routing against the sibling report/granular tools.

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% with 5 parameters (chart, fields, language, precision, whitelabel), so the schema already documents much. The description only says '[Required: chart]' and never explains fields, language, precision, or whitelabel, and its Lahiri/ayanamsa note describes fixed compute rather than advising how to set those parameters. 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 and resource ('Lal Kitab analysis') and enumerates the exact report contents (Teva, Kismat & Prosperity scores, Rins, Upayas), so the agent knows precisely what it produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from the granular siblings it duplicates (astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_teva, _kismat, _prosperity, _debts, _remedies) nor from astroway_reports_generate.

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 cost block gives a real usage constraint ('5,000 credits, Tier 7, ~50% of free monthly budget — confirm with user before invoking'), which is actionable guidance. But it offers no when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives routing against the many lal_kitab and reports siblings, leaving selection to inference.

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