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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description adds the cost tier (20 credits, Tier 2), a genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It adds nothing about output shape, but an output schema exists so that is not required here.

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 front-loaded sentences carry the full payload, with group and cost metadata kept compactly separate. Zero wasted wording.

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 read-only computation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, composition and cost adequately. The remaining gap is the silent 15-parameter surface, but the schema carries the bulk of that burden.

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?

15 parameters with only 33% schema description coverage, and the description mentions no parameter at all. Date, time, latitude, longitude, city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem and ayanamsaId are left undocumented in both places. With coverage below 50% the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 precisely what is computed (combined rasi drishti + graha drishti) and grounds each component in its rule system (modality rules, Parashari aspects). It also names the two underlying operations, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_rasi and astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_graha tools.

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?

Calling it a "convenience aggregate of /drishti-rasi and /drishti-graha" strongly implies the routing rule: use this when you want both tables in one call, use the individual tools when you need only one. The condition is clear but never stated explicitly as a when-not, so it stops short of a 5.

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