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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the 20-credit (Tier 2) cost and the 3-level cascade structure of the output. It says nothing about auth requirements or rate limits, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is adequate.

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 short bracketed metadata lines and one content line, all front-loaded with the resource identity first. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values, and the schema documents all parameters. What is missing for a 20-credit Tier 2 tool sitting among ~30 near-identical dasha siblings is any differentiation guidance or explanation of what the alias relationship means in practice.

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% and the nested birth-data schema is extensively documented (coordinate rules, timezone handling, house-system letters), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about body, fields or precision; 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?

Names the specific dasha system (Shodashottari) and level (Pratyantardasha) and clarifies the position in the hierarchy with '3-level cascade (MD → AD → 8 PDs)', which lets an agent distinguish it from the _maha, _antar, _prana and _sookshma siblings. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling dasha levels. The only steer is the parenthetical noting it is a 'Cursor-friendly alias' for the canonical tool, which hints at which variant to pick in Cursor but says nothing about when a pratyantar-level result is wanted over antar or prana.

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