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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context via the cost line (20 credits, Tier 2) and the interpretive meaning of the finding, but says nothing about the return shape or that a birth chart is required.

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 lines plus bracketed metadata tags; the definition is front-loaded and every element serves a purpose. No padding or redundancy.

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?

For a 15-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description omits that a full birth chart (date, time, coordinates) is needed and mentions no defaults. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input side is left thin.

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%, so the description carries extra burden - and it supplies none. Required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude) and options like ayanamsa, houseSystem, and zodiacType are never mentioned in prose.

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 defines the astrological condition (Saturn + Rahu conjunct) and the tool name pins the specific dosha among many Parashara siblings (grahan, guru_chandal, kaal_sarp, mangal, pitru). However, it never states the operation - that it computes/detects this dosha from birth data - leaving the agent to infer the verb.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_full or the Lal Kitab Shrapit variant. The agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right pick.

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