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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2), which is genuinely useful decision context, but says nothing about accuracy caveats, auth, or rate limits.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with supporting detail and cost metadata following. It is appropriately sized, though the dense list of argala source houses is heavy and could be trimmed since the output schema carries return detail.

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 and annotations cover safety, so return values and safety need no explanation. However, for a 15-parameter tool the description never signals that it requires birth date/time/location, leaving the agent to infer all input requirements from the schema.

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, and the description mentions no parameters at all. It does not compensate for the coverage gap by explaining how the birth data, ayanamsa, zodiacType, or houseSystem choices affect the argala computation.

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 a specific technique (Argala/Virodhargala scan) and its output set (net influence and dominant-over metric per house across all 12 houses), so an agent knows exactly what is computed. It is clearly distinguishable from generic Jaimini aspect tools like jaimini_drishti_rasi, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many other Jaimini or Vedic analysis tools; the usage is only implied by the subject matter. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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