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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2), the Vedic grouping, and the cited source (Jaimini Sutras 1.1). It does not describe what the returned table looks like or how it is keyed, though an output schema exists.

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 rule is stated first and compactly, with no filler prose; the bracketed group and cost lines are terse metadata. Every sentence earns its place, though the doctrinal sentence is dense enough to need slow parsing.

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 needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is routing guidance against drishti_graha/aspects siblings and any parameter hints for a 15-param tool, so the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent.

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 supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever — no note on date/time/latitude/longitude requirements, ayanamsa selection, or the compact-mode fields/precision options. With low coverage the description should 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?

The description names the specific artifact ('Jaimini rasi drishti table') and spells out the sign-aspect rule (movable/fixed/dual interactions), which tells an agent exactly what doctrine this tool computes. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_graha (planetary drishti), leaving that separation to the tool name alone.

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 mention of the graha-drishti sibling as an alternative, and no stated prerequisites or chart requirements. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool name and the doctrinal rule text.

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