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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds useful context beyond that: the exact composition of the payload and the cost/tier ('20 credits (Tier 2)'), which an agent cannot infer from annotations. It does not describe response shape, but the 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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences followed by compact group/cost metadata. No sentence is redundant and the key distinction (all-9 vs single) is stated plainly.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no prose, and the description still summarizes the payload and the param's dual behavior. It omits that a full natal birth payload (date/time/lat/lon) is required, but the schema marks `body` required, so the gap is minor.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the `planet` param that the schema lacks (the schema only types it as an integer): omitting it returns all 9 planets, supplying it returns one. That is a genuine semantic addition over the raw 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?

States a specific verb+resource (per-planet Lal Kitab remedies/upayas) and enumerates the returned content: canonical Mathur-tradition remedy, day, donation and mantra. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling Lal Kitab tools (doshas, kismat, lal_kundali, teva), which analyze rather than prescribe remedies.

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?

Explains the two invocation modes of the `planet` param (single-planet vs all 9), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over related siblings like lal_kitab_doshas or reports_lal_kitab, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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