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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful extra context the annotations lack: a cost of 20 credits (Tier 2) and the aggregate nature of the call, letting the agent weigh it against calling the two components.

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?

Two sentences plus a compact metadata block (Group/Endpoint/Required/Cost), all front-loaded with the core purpose first. Every line carries signal, though the bracketed metadata is structural rather than explanatory.

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 description supplies endpoint, cost tier, and required inputs. The main shortfall is the sparse parameter documentation, but for a read-only aggregate whose output schema is defined, this is largely adequate.

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?

The schema only describes 33% of 15 parameters, so the description carries a heavier burden but adds almost nothing. It restates the four required params already marked required in the schema and offers no meaning for the many undocumented fields (city, name, cosmogram, date/time formats, houseSystem).

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 verb+resource (combined Jaimini aspects) and precisely decomposes it into rasi drishti and graha drishti. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_rasi and astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_graha by naming itself a 'convenience aggregate' of them.

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?

The phrase 'Convenience aggregate of /drishti-rasi and /drishti-graha' tells the agent when to pick this tool: when both aspect tables are wanted in one call. It implies the components can be called separately if only one is needed, but does not state that exclusion explicitly, so it falls short of a full 5.

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