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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the credit cost (20, Tier 2) and the numerical output convention (60v at preferred kendra cusp, 0v at the opposite point, linear gradient), which is genuine behavioral context. It says nothing about auth or rate limits, but the added scoring semantics justify above-baseline credit.

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?

Four dense, front-loaded sentences: the metric, its scale, and the planet-to-house mapping, with no filler. The metadata tags are compact and separable from the 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 not be explained, and the description supplies the domain semantics needed to interpret them. However, for a 15-parameter tool with only 33% schema coverage, the complete absence of input guidance (required fields, ayanamsa/zodiac implications) leaves an agent under-informed about how to invoke it correctly.

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, so the description carries a heavier burden — and it contributes nothing about inputs. It never mentions the four required parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude) or options like ayanamsa, houseSystem, fields, or precision. The house numbers cited (10th, 4th, 1st, 7th) are astrological output semantics, not parameter guidance.

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 specific quantity the tool produces (Dig Bala, directional strength) and even spells out its scoring scale and per-planet preferred houses, so the resource is unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling shadbala tools (cheshta, drik, full, kala, naisargika, sthana), which all share the same naming pattern.

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 call this versus astroway_vedic_shadbala_full or the other component balas, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that a natal chart's birth data is needed). The [Group: Vedic] and [Cost] tags give catalog context but not usage direction.

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