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

The annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations lack: the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the endpoint. It does not discuss determinism, rate limits, or what a partial/undefined result means, so it remains a moderate improvement rather than rich disclosure.

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 definitional sentence is front-loaded and dense, and the bracketed metadata is compact and scannable. Nothing is padded, though the metadata block partly duplicates structured fields rather than earning its place as 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and cost/endpoint/required inputs are present. However, for a 15-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description omits any guidance on the optional configuration parameters and offers no usage context, leaving it minimally viable rather than complete.

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%, and the description only restates the four required parameters that the schema already marks as required — adding no meaning for date/time formats, timezone behavior, ayanamsa selection, or compact-mode `fields`. With a 15-parameter surface and low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 dosha and spells out the exact astrological configuration that triggers it (Sun/Moon conjunct Rahu/Ketu), plus the four sub-patterns. An agent can tell it apart from the sibling Parashara dosha tools (mangal, pitru, kaal_sarp, guru_chandal). The verb is implicit ('analyze/detect') rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many Parashara dosha siblings, and no prerequisites. The bracketed [Required]/[Cost] block is metadata already available in the schema, not selection guidance.

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