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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful cost context (20 credits, Tier 2) and the Vedic group tag, but says nothing about accuracy, sidereal/tropical assumptions, or validation behavior beyond what the schema and annotations carry.

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 plus a compact group/cost footer. The listed aspect degrees are somewhat gratuitous for tool selection but do hint at what the computation returns, and there is no filler.

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 explained, and annotations cover safety. But for a 15-parameter, 4-required chart-calculation tool with 33% param coverage, the near-total absence of input guidance leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is the main opportunity to compensate and it does not: it explains none of date, time, latitude, longitude, timezone, ayanamsa, or the compact-mode fields/precision controls. The aspect rules it lists describe the astrological doctrine, not any input argument.

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+resource ('Per-planet graha drishti') and grounds it in a named system (Parashari/BPHS). It also gestures at the sibling distinction by noting it is used 'alongside rasi drishti', which helps separate it from astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_rasi, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

The phrase 'Used in Jaimini-context dashboards alongside rasi drishti' gives contextual usage, implying it is a companion to the rasi drishti tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement of when to prefer one drishti tool over the other.

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