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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world). The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts not in the structured fields: the depth structure (5-level cascade) and the output granularity (minute-scale at full depth), plus the 20-credit tier cost. It omits return shape and pagination, so it lands at a solid 3.

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 sentences plus bracketed metadata; the technique name and depth claim are front-loaded with zero filler. Slightly telegraphic rather than wasteful, so not quite a 5.

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 explained. But for a 3-parameter astrological dasha tool with a complex nested birth-data body, the description never clarifies the relationship between the chart data, the optional target date/time, and the resulting prana sequence. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 object is heavily documented in the schema itself, so baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing about the body, targetDate/targetTime, or the compact-mode fields/precision parameters.

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 technique (Chara Pranadasha) and its position as the fifth, finest level of the cascade, which lets an agent place it against the chara_maha/antar/pratyantar/sookshma siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings or route between them, 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?

No statement of when to use this depth versus chara_sookshma or chara_pratyantar, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The only hint is 'finest grain', which implies precision but never says the trade-off in cost or output volume.

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