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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine algorithmic context (cycle length, per-house duration, tradition, and that alternate 38y implementations are flagged in a `method` field) plus a cost tier, but says nothing about output shape or accuracy caveats beyond that. Modest value beyond annotations.

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 defining cycle mechanics, plus compact Group/Cost tags. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical about alternate implementations is slightly buried at the end.

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 the tool is read-only, lowering the burden. Still, with 15 parameters at low coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally sufficient for an agent to call it correctly versus the crowded dasha/lal-kitab sibling set.

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 is expected to compensate, and it does not: no parameter is named or explained. It implies birth data ('from age 0 forward') but never clarifies that date/time/latitude/longitude are the required inputs or what the undocumented params (zodiacType, houseSystem, name, city) mean here.

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 and scope: computes the Lal Kitab dasha, defining the 35-year cycle and ~2.917-year per-house period from age 0. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from generic charting. It does not, however, contrast itself with the many sibling dasha systems (vimshottari, ashtottari, etc.), so differentiation rests on the 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative among the numerous dasha tools. 'Per K. Ashant tradition' tells the agent about a variant but not which situations call for this tool versus another dasha. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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