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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds value beyond them by disclosing cost (20 credits, Tier 2), the endpoint, and the required inputs, plus the equivalence to the parashara mangal endpoint. It does not describe depth of the returned interpretation, but that is minor given the output schema exists.

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 dense sentences front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by compact metadata tags for group, endpoint, required fields and cost. Nothing is wasted, though the bracket metadata could be trimmed if the schema already carries the required list.

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 tool the description covers only a fraction of the surface, but annotations cover safety, an output schema covers returns, and the metadata block supplies endpoint, cost and required fields. An agent could call it correctly for the common case but would be under-informed about the many optional chart-configuration parameters.

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 coverage is only 33% across 15 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate, yet it documents only the 'school' option (strict/north/south, default south) and the required date/time/lat/long. Notably that 'school' parameter does not appear in the supplied input schema, which could confuse mapping, and the remaining parameters (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, etc.) are left to their own names.

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 and resource ('Detects Manglik status for a single chart') and explicitly delimits itself to a single chart, which separates it from the sibling astroway_vedic_compatibility_mangal_match (a two-chart match). It also ties itself to the same canon as astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_mangal so the agent knows the underlying calculation.

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?

Gives clear context: use in matchmaking/compatibility flows, single chart, with school selection. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_mangal or the mangal_match sibling, so there is no exclusion guidance, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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