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), so the description is not carrying that burden. It does add genuinely useful operational context absent from the annotations: the POST endpoint, the four mandatory inputs, and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost that matters for call planning. What it omits is analysis behavior — what chart conditions trigger a Kalsarpa result, whether remedies are always returned, or whether cancellation logic is applied.

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 one-line purpose sits first and the bracketed metadata block is terse and scannable rather than padded. No sentence is wasted, though the block is template boilerplate that repeats structured information (required list) rather than adding insight.

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 shape need not be explained, and the cost and required inputs are stated. But for a 15-parameter, 20-credit dosha computation in a dense sibling family of near-identical dosha tools, the definition is thin: it gives no basis for choosing this Lal Kitab Kalsarpa call over the KP or Parashara equivalents, and no indication of how the dosha verdict is derived or whether remedy output is guaranteed.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate and does not. It restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude), which the schema's `required` array already declares verbatim, and says nothing about the eleven optional parameters, including the semantically rich ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, and timezoneOffset choices. An agent gets no help from the prose on any parameter that the schema leaves undocumented.

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 names the specific resource (Kalsarpa dosha, glossed as Rahu-Ketu encirclement) and the interpretive school (Lal Kitab remedies), which is exactly the axis that separates it from astroway_vedic_doshas_kp_kalasarpa and astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_kaal_sarp. It is a noun fragment with no verb, so it says what the resource is rather than what the tool does with it, and it never names the sibling it displaces.

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?

Use is only implied: the 'Lal Kitab' qualifier and the [Group: Vedic] tag tell an agent this belongs to the Lal Kitab branch of the dosha family, and astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_full is the obvious aggregate alternative. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or 'for school X use that tool instead' statement, so the agent must infer routing from naming conventions alone.

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