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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and group tag, but says nothing about output shape or computation caveats beyond the formula.

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 key term and the formula, then the drishti table, then cost/group metadata. It is dense but every clause is compact and none is redundant filler.

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 annotations cover safety. However, for a 15-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage and six sibling bala tools, the description omits both parameter context and sibling differentiation.

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% and the description contributes zero parameter guidance, leaving city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, latitude and longitude undocumented in both places. The formula text explains the algorithm, not how to feed it.

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 concept ('Drik Bala, net aspectual strength') and gives its exact BPHS formula, so an agent knows this computes one Shadbala component rather than a full reading. It is distinguishable from sibling Shadbala tools by the aspectual focus, though it never names or contrasts with them.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. With siblings like astroway_vedic_shadbala_full and the other five bala components, the description should say when to pick Drik alone versus the full Shadbala; it says nothing.

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