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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the computational composition and cost tier (20 credits, Tier 2), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about determinism, latency, or failure modes for invalid coordinates.

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, front-loaded with the definition before the usage clause, plus compact Group/Cost metadata. Nothing is padded, though the composition list is dense and could be trimmed without loss.

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. For a 15-parameter computation tool, though, the description leaves the large parameter surface and any ayanamsa/zodiac defaults undocumented, so an agent still has gaps before it can call this correctly.

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, so the description carries a heavy burden to compensate and it does not: it mentions no parameter at all, not even the required date/time/latitude/longitude inputs or how ayanamsa/zodiacType interact with KP results.

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 states a specific computed artifact and enumerates its components (Day-lord + Hora-lord + Asc-sign/star/sub + Moon-sign/star/sub, deduplicated), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. However it never distinguishes itself from closely-named KP/horary siblings like astroway_vedic_kp_horary, astroway_vedic_kp_sub_lords, or astroway_vedic_kp_significators, which all operate in the same domain.

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 horary timing analysis' implies a usage context, which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no when-not, and no pointer to the sibling KP tools that might be the better choice for a given task.

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