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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the values are fixed constants per planet (implying the output is largely chart-independent), and it discloses the 20-credit Tier 2 cost. It says nothing about how chart inputs influence the result.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the definition and value table before the bracketed metadata. Efficient, though the value list is arguably output detail that could live elsewhere.

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 format need not be described, but for a 15-parameter tool with low schema coverage the description is silent on inputs and on how it relates to the other shadbala tools. An agent has enough to know what it computes but not enough to call it correctly or pick it over siblings.

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?

Fifteen parameters at only 33% schema coverage, and the description supplies no parameter information at all. Required date/time/latitude/longitude and the many optional chart-shaping fields (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, fields, precision) are left entirely to a partially documented schema.

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 specific resource (Naisargika Bala) and defines it as fixed natural strength per planet, with a concrete value table that makes the output unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the six sibling shadbala tools (cheshta, dig, drik, full, kala, sthana), so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to call.

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, no mention of when to prefer shadbala_full or the other component balas, and no prerequisites. The [Group: Vedic] / [Cost: ...] tags are metadata, not usage direction.

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