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), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context absent from annotations: cost (20 credits, Tier 2), the POST endpoint, and the tool group. It does not describe response shape, but an output schema exists to carry 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 with the essential depth characterization, followed by compact structured metadata lines for group, endpoint, and cost. No filler sentences; the only mild redundancy is restating the tool name in the opening line.

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?

With a rich input schema, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies what the structured fields cannot: cost tier and endpoint. The remaining gap is domain guidance on what distinguishes prana-level output from the other Kalachakra depths, which would help an agent choose correctly.

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 body schema already documents birth data, timezone handling, and the fields/precision compact-mode parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

The description names the specific dasha system (Kalachakra), the level (Pranadasha), and characterizes its depth as a '5-level cascade (finest grain, minutes-scale at full depth).' That lets an agent place it against sibling levels like kalachakra_sookshma or kalachakra_maha, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'finest grain, minutes-scale at full depth' suggests reaching for this when minute-level timing is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to the coarser kalachakra levels (maha/antar/pratyantar/sookshma) that share this family.

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