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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the age-range scope and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which is genuinely useful for tool selection, but says nothing about response shape or any auth requirement.

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 plus group/cost tags, front-loaded with the scope (age 0..35) rather than burying it. No filler, though the [Group]/[Cost] tags are metadata rather than descriptive prose.

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 no explanation, and cost is disclosed. But for a 15-parameter chart computation the description is thin: it never hints at the required birth data or the timezone/ayanamsa choices the agent must supply.

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 should compensate for the undocumented inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude, ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram). It instead describes no parameter at all, leaving several required and enum inputs explained only by bare schema types.

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: a year-by-year Lal Kitab dasha snapshot over ages 0–35, naming the fields returned (running house, its ruler, the ruler's state). That is clearly distinct from astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_dasha or the lal_kundali/teva siblings, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Use as a rough timing index" gives an implied usage context and hedges the precision of the output. However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not route the agent toward or away from the many other Lal Kitab / dasha tools in the sibling set.

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