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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the detection criterion and the fact that remedies are included, plus a cost tag, but does not describe output shape or any auth/rate context beyond the credit note.

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 tight sentences front-load the key concept and are followed by compact group/cost tags. Every element is meaningful and there is no filler.

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. For a 15-parameter chart computation the description is minimally adequate: it conveys what the tool computes but leaves parameter usage and sibling routing entirely to the schema and naming.

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?

The description adds nothing about any of the 15 parameters. With schema description coverage at only 33% and the four required params (date, time, latitude, longitude) carrying no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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+resource: it computes the Shrapit dosha under the Lal Kitab system, defines the criterion (Saturn conjunct Rahu/Ketu), and notes remedies are returned. The 'per LK' qualifier helps distinguish it from the Parashara and KP shrapit siblings, though it does not name those alternatives directly.

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 description never says when to choose this tool over the many sibling dosha tools (lal_kitab_full, lal_kitab_pitra, parashara_shrapit, kp_full, etc.). Usage is only inferable from the name and the definitional sentence; no prerequisites or routing guidance are given.

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