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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds real computational context: the 1°/year 'naisargika' symbolic progression model, the returned fields (age-of-event, before/after planets, life-event hints), and a hard behavioral limit (default 84 years, capped at 120). This is meaningful context beyond annotations, though nothing is said about performance or precision.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, followed by output content and scope limits in two dense but purposeful sentences. No filler; the [Group]/[Cost] tags are structured metadata rather than prose. Jargon ('naisargika', 'chara karaka') is heavy but domain-appropriate.

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 not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 15-parameter tool with only 33% schema coverage and no parameter guidance, the description leaves the agent under-equipped to fill in the input correctly. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 is expected to compensate for undocumented parameters, and it does not. It mentions a 'span' of 84/120 years, but no such span parameter exists in the schema, so that detail does not map to any input; the required date/time/latitude/longitude and the ayanamsa/houseSystem/zodiacType choices get no explanation.

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 a specific verb and resource: it scans for moments when the rank-1 chara karaka (Atmakaraka) changes, returning a timeline of soul-significator transitions. This is more specific than the static sibling tools (chara_karakas, karakas), though the description never names an alternative tool to disambiguate. Clear purpose, but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named among the many Jaimini siblings. The default/capped span gives a scoping constraint but not selection guidance. Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement alone.

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