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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds interpretive context (dormant planets, remedies activate them) and the credit cost, which is useful, but says nothing about what is returned or how the dormant-house result should be read.

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 defining condition. No filler, though the second sentence is interpretive rather than operational.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 15-parameter computation tool in a dense sibling family the description omits the required birth-data inputs and any differentiation from blind_house or remedies, leaving an agent unable to confidently select it.

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 birth data, timezone handling, or the compact-mode fields parameter. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 defines the astrological concept ('houses where a planet is in its pakka ghar with no companions/aspects') but never states the action the tool performs — no verb like 'compute', 'list', or 'analyze'. An agent can infer it returns a sleeping-house analysis, but it cannot distinguish this from the close sibling astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_blind_house, which is a near-identical Lal Kitab house-classification tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as blind_house, remedies, or planet_house_effect despite a large Lal Kitab sibling family. The only practical cue is the cost/group tag.

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