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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the credit cost (20, Tier 2), the endpoint, and that remedies are returned. It does not mention auth needs or pagination.

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 dosha definition and remedy note, followed by bracketed operational metadata. Efficient and scannable, though the bracketed block is somewhat boilerplate.

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 described, but for a 15-parameter tool with low schema coverage the description leaves most parameter semantics (ayanamsa, house system, timezone handling, precision) unexplained. It is not sufficient for correct invocation without reading the schema closely.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description must carry weight, but it merely restates the four required fields already listed in the schema. It says nothing about the interplay of timezone vs timezoneOffset, ayanamsa selection, or the compact-mode fields parameter.

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 resource (Shrapit dosha) and even the defining condition (Saturn conjunct Rahu/Ketu), which is unusually concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many near-identical siblings (lal_kitab_pitra, lal_kitab_rin, parashara_shrapit); the 'per LK' tag is the only routing signal.

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 tool over the other Lal Kitab or Parashara dosha tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The [Required] and [Cost] lines are operational facts, not usage context.

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