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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds operationally relevant facts those annotations cannot carry - the POST endpoint and a billing cost (20 credits, Tier 2). It does not describe return shape, but an output schema exists and covers that.

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 most distinctive content (the aspect rules) is front-loaded, followed by a short context sentence and a compact bracketed metadata block. Every line carries information; only the 'Jaimini-context dashboards' phrasing leans on vocabulary an agent may not need.

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 computation tool, the basics are there: what is computed, the cost, the endpoint, the required inputs, plus complete safety annotations and an output schema. What is missing is guidance on the chart-shaping options (zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsa variants) that materially change the result, leaving a large share of parameters unexplained in both places.

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 is expected to compensate - yet it only restates the four required parameters that are already enumerated in the schema's required array. Cryptic inputs such as ayanamsaId (number), houseSystem (single-letter enum) and cosmogram receive no meaning from the description.

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?

It names the exact computation (per-planet graha drishti) and even spells out the Parashari aspect rules for Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the default 7th, which no sibling does. It also names the sibling it belongs next to ('alongside rasi drishti', i.e. astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_rasi), so an agent can separate the two aspect tools without opening either schema.

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?

'Used in Jaimini-context dashboards alongside rasi drishti' implies the context of use but never states a when-to-use/when-not rule or a selection condition against the rasi drishti sibling. The agent must infer that graha drishti and rasi drishti are complementary rather than alternatives.

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