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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the group tag, which are useful operational context, but says nothing about the report's structure, auth needs, or limits beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by group and cost tags. No filler, no repetition of the title or name.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover safety. For a 15-param aggregate tool the description sufficiently conveys scope (the six detectors), though it leaves the parameter space entirely undocumented, which is the one remaining gap.

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 only 33% across 15 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate for the undocumented ones, and it does not mention a single parameter. The four required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude) and the many optional chart-config params are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Combined Parashara dosha report') and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: all 6 detectors (Mangal/Kaal Sarp/Pitru/Shrapit/Grahan/Guru-Chandal). This lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling single-detector tools like astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_mangal without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'runs all 6 detectors' clearly signals this is the aggregate option versus the individual parashara_* detector siblings, giving an agent clear context for selection. However, it never states an explicit when-to-use/when-not rule or names an alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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