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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the safety burden is covered. The description usefully adds the cost signal (20 credits, Tier 2) and group, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or what the calculation depends on.

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 sentences with the resource front-loaded, followed by compact group/cost tags. No filler, though the bracketed metadata is boilerplate common to the server rather than tool-specific content.

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 values need no explanation, and the concept is defined clearly. But for a 15-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves real gaps an agent would have to resolve by trial.

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%, and the description contributes zero parameter information. The four required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude), plus city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType and houseSystem, are left entirely to the schema, so the low-coverage gap is not compensated.

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 exact quantity computed ('sign occupied by the Atmakaraka in the Navamsa (D9)') and its interpretive domain, so the agent knows what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like astroway_vedic_jaimini_karakas, astroway_vedic_jaimini_atmakaraka_rotation, or astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_karakamsa.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related Jaimini tools a caller should consider instead. The Sutras reference describes meaning, not usage, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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