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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is free to add the higher-value context it does: the simplified retrograde+speed model, the explicit divergence tolerance vs jhora (≤30v on non-stationary dates), and the note that the full BPHS Cheshta-Kendra method is deferred to Phase Q. That is unusually candid accuracy/limitation disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential identity of the quantity, then limitations, with no filler sentences. The inline arithmetic (retrograde=60v, ratio*60) is arguably more implementation detail than an agent needs to select or invoke the tool, keeping it short of a 5.

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 annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 15-parameter tool at 33% schema coverage with no sibling routing, the description leaves both input semantics and when-to-use guidance unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate, and it adds no parameter guidance at all — city, date, time, latitude, longitude, cosmogram, zodiacType, and houseSystem are undocumented in both places. The Sun/Moon remark is about output values, not inputs.

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 the exact quantity computed (Cheshta Bala / motional strength) and even specifies the model behind it, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling components like shadbala_dig, shadbala_kala, and the aggregate shadbala_full without opening any schema.

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?

It explains the computation but never states when to pick this tool over astroway_vedic_shadbala_full or the other five bala siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g. a natal chart first). The only boundary information is that Sun/Moon return 0 and are covered by other components, which is scope rather than usage routing.

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