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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the cost tier (20 credits, Tier 2) and by explaining how the returned score is computed and interpreted (higher = more prosperity yoga). It does not mention permissions, but for a deterministic compute endpoint with annotations covering safety this is adequate.

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 short, front-loaded sentences that put the formula first, plus terse group/cost tags. No wasted words, though the abbreviated jargon (LK dhana yoga sum) assumes domain familiarity.

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 described, and the algorithmic rule is given. However, for a 15-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage and no usage guidance or sibling routing, key information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 contributes nothing about parameters - no mention of the required date/time/latitude/longitude, timezone, ayanamsa, or compact-mode fields. With low coverage the description should compensate but does not, leaving reliance entirely on the partial schema.

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 a specific computation: summing benefics (Moon/Mercury/Venus/Jupiter) in houses 2/5/9/11 with +2 each, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It is far more specific than a tautology, but it does not name or contrast with sibling tools such as astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_dhana or astroway_reports_lal_kitab.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many other Lal Kitab and dhana-yoga siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only routing hint is the group and cost tag, which is not usage guidance.

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