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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context about the computation (seed derivation, 7/8/9-year durations, 365.256364d sidereal year), but says nothing about the returned structure beyond what the output schema carries.

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?

The content is dense and largely front-loaded with the technique name, but it reads as a compressed technical note, is truncated mid-sentence ('PyJHora c…'), and packs multiple clauses without clear separation.

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 a rich nested input schema, an output schema, and full safety annotations, the description's main remaining obligation is routing among the ~15 dasha siblings, which it does not do. It explains methodology well but leaves selection ambiguous.

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%, so the schema documents body, fields, and precision thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, which is acceptable given full schema coverage but earns only the baseline.

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?

The description states a specific technique: 'Sthira Dasha: Jaimini fixed rasi-dasha', with concrete computation detail (Brahma seed derivation, 12-sign walk, per-sign durations). This distinguishes it from the sibling sthira_antar/pratyantar/sookshma tools only implicitly via the 'MD' reference, so it falls short of a full 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other dasha tools (vimshottari, yogini, chara, ashtottari, etc.) or versus its own sub-period siblings. The text is entirely methodology, leaving tool selection to inference.

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