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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it explicitly discloses that only 3 of BPHS's 14 patterns are detected, which tells the agent the result may be a false negative. It also surfaces the 20-credit Tier 2 cost. Return shape is not described, but an output schema exists.

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?

Roughly three sentences, front-loaded with the detection rule before the caveat. The 'deferred to Phase Q' phrasing is internal-sounding but short, and the group/cost tags are compact. Little waste overall.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the detection-scope caveat covers the biggest risk. Still missing: how this differs from the other Pitru endpoints and any hint that full birth data is required, which matters for a 15-parameter compute tool.

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 no parameter guidance whatsoever, despite 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage. Required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude) and the numerous optional tuning fields are left entirely to the schema, and the birth-data requirement is never mentioned.

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 concrete detection rule: Pitru Dosha as Sun conjunct Rahu or Saturn, plus Sun in 9H as an auxiliary marker. That is a specific verb/resource an agent can act on. It does not, however, distinguish this endpoint from close siblings like astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_full or astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_pitra, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It implicitly scopes usage by naming what is detected (3 conjunction patterns) and what is deferred (9th-lord placement, malefic in 9H). That tells the agent this endpoint is a partial detector, but it never says when to reach for it versus parashara_full or the KP/Lal Kitab Pitru variants.

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