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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful planning context – the [Group: Vedic] family and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost – but says nothing about computation method, default ayanamsa, or timezone resolution behavior that a caller must know.

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 terse: the chart name and its interpretive purpose come first, followed by compact group/cost tags. Every element carries some signal, though the parenthetical is the only real content sentence.

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?

For a 15-parameter chart tool with low schema coverage, this is thin. The output schema is present so return values need not be explained, but defaults (Lahiri ayanamsa, house system P) and the timezone/timezoneOffset interaction are never surfaced, leaving an agent to discover critical input semantics from the raw schema alone.

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, and the description adds zero parameter-level meaning. Many inputs (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, latitude, longitude) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap as required.

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 the specific resource (Dasamsa / D10 divisional chart) and its interpretive domain (career, profession, public reputation), which meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like the D9 Navamsa or D7. However, it never names or contrasts with any sibling tool, so the agent must infer the D-number mapping itself.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the ~15 varga tools (D1, D2, D9, D12, etc.) or astroway_specialized_vedic_divisional. The only routing signal is the loose 'career, profession, public reputation' domain hint.

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