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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful invocation context — cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the POST endpoint — but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or payload size, so it only partially extends beyond the structured data.

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?

Single compact sentence plus bracketed metadata, front-loaded with the operation. Every element carries information; the structure is scannable. Slight redundancy in the alias note, which restates the tool's own identity.

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 described, and the birth-data body is thoroughly explained in-schema. What is missing is anything about what the cascade output means or how this depth relates to the surrounding dasha levels, which matters for a domain-specific calculation tool.

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 100% and the three parameters (body, fields, precision) are each documented in-schema with detailed descriptions. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 resource (Shodashottari Pratyantardasha) and its depth structure ('3-level cascade (MD → AD → 8 PDs)'), which helps distinguish it from the antar/prana/sookshma variants in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer at a given depth, but the cascade description is concrete enough to place it.

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 stated alternatives. The only routing hint is the note that it is an alias for `astroway_vedic_dashas_shodashottari_pratyantar`, which is a duplicate, not an alternative — an agent still cannot tell why it should pick this over shodashottari_antar or _sookshma.

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