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 operationally relevant context annotations cannot express: the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, the POST endpoint, and the required parameter set — useful for an agent budgeting calls. It says nothing about response shape, but an 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?

Front-loaded: the composite contents come first, then the Sade-Sati caveat, then compact bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost). No filler sentences; the metadata block is scannable rather than prose.

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 at 33% schema coverage, the description covers only the required set and cost. With an output schema present it need not explain returns, but it leaves ayanamsa defaults, timezone handling, and the compact-mode parameters undocumented here.

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, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It merely restates the four required params already declared in the schema's required list, adding no meaning for city, name, fields, precision, houseSystem, zodiacType, or the ayanamsa/ayanamsaId pair.

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?

Names the specific composite output — manglik + kalasarpa + pitra + kemadruma + Sade-Sati pointer — which tells the agent exactly which dosha results are bundled and distinguishes it from the sibling single-dosha tools (kp_manglik, kp_kalasarpa, etc.). The exclusion of Sade Sati is stated outright.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for Sade Sati ('requires an explicit targetDate; call /sade-sati separately'), which is a concrete when-not-to-use instruction. It does not explicitly say to prefer this over the individual kp_* dosha calls, but the 'composite/full' framing makes that implied.

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