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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context (cost of 20 credits, Tier 2, and that it returns combined Virupa/Rupa per planet), but says nothing about pagination, auth, or output shape beyond that.

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 and short, with cost/group metadata clearly tagged. However, the mixed-language text ("всі 6 типів" embedded in an English sentence) hurts readability and looks like an unpolished paste.

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 purpose plus cost are covered. But for a 15-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no guidance on choosing it over the six component shadbala tools, the description leaves notable gaps.

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?

15 parameters with only 33% schema description coverage, and the description mentions no parameter at all. The required four (date, time, latitude, longitude) are undocumented in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: it aggregates all 6 Shadbala strength types plus total Virupa and total Rupa per planet, which distinguishes it from the per-component siblings (shadbala_sthana, shadbala_dig, etc.). It doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"Single call" and "useful for Vedic chart strength dashboards" imply the aggregate use case versus calling the six individual shadbala tools, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not rule or named alternative is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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