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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structural context: a 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the endpoint plus the four required inputs, which helps an agent budget and pre-validate before calling. It does not describe computation behavior, but with an output schema present that is acceptable.

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?

The composite contents are front-loaded in a single dense sentence, and the bracketed metadata lines are terse and skimmable. Nothing is padded, though the bracketed block is boilerplate rather than prose that adds interpretation.

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 Vedic computation the description is only minimally sufficient: it fixes the required inputs and cost but leaves the agent guessing about which ayanamsa/house-system defaults are assumed and what the composite output contains. The output schema covers return values, which keeps this from being inadequate.

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 carries a compensation burden it does not meet. It lists the four required parameters but says nothing about the consequential optional ones (ayanamsa, houseSystem, zodiacType, timezone, fields, precision) that materially change the result.

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 resource (Lal Kitab dosha summary) and enumerates its exact contents: manglik, kalsarpa, pitra, shrapit, 6 Rin, and kismat score. This is clearly distinguishable from the single-dosha siblings, but it never explicitly says it is the composite counterpart to astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_manglik/_kalsarpa/etc.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The presence of five sibling single-dosha Lal Kitab tools makes an obvious routing question ('use this for a complete screen, or a single-dosha tool for one specific dosha?') that the description never answers. Cost and required-parameter notes are metadata, not usage guidance.

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