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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational facts — the POST endpoint and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost — which an agent needs for budgeting and routing, but says nothing about latency, the output content, or the KP-specific semantics of the sub-lord chain.

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 one-line purpose followed by compact bracketed metadata. Every line earns its place; the only weakness is that the metadata blocks replace rather than supplement real semantic content.

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 explained, and the required inputs and cost are stated. However, for a 15-parameter Vijay/Vedic calculation with three enums and a small coverage footprint, the description leaves the agent without guidance on the sidereal school, house system, or house/zodiac options that materially change the result.

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 would need to compensate, yet it only restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema already marks required. Eleven optional parameters, including ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, and timezoneOffset, get no mention here.

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 a specific verb-less but resource-specific output: the Kalasarpa dosha computed with the KP Rahu sub-lord chain. That distinguishes it from sibling dosha tools like kp_kemadruma, kp_manglik, and lal_kitab_kalsarpa, though it does not explicitly say 'computes' or name the lineage difference versus parashara_kaal_sarp.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over kp_full, lal_kitab_kalsarpa, or parashara_kaal_sarp is given. The only context is endpoint/cost metadata, which tells an agent nothing about selection conditions.

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