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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the cost (20 credits) and the required inputs, which is useful billing context, but says nothing about latency, whether a full chart is needed internally, or failure modes. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 substantive rule content in a single dense sentence, followed by a compact metadata block for group, endpoint, required params and cost. Every line carries information; the format is efficient for an agent to scan.

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-value documentation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover safety, leaving the domain rules as the main thing to convey. However, the description omits sibling differentiation against graha drishti and any guidance on the optional chart parameters that materially affect this calculation.

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 coverage is only 33% across 15 parameters, yet the description contributes nothing beyond repeating the four required fields already in the schema. Meaningful options such as fields (compact mode), ayanamsa school, zodiacType, houseSystem, and timezone handling are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific resource (Jaimini rasi drishti table) and even enumerates the actual sign-aspect rules, which makes the output unambiguous. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_graha (planetary drishti), so the agent must infer the sign-vs-planet distinction from the domain rule text alone.

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 or when-not guidance and the closely related sibling astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_graha is never mentioned. The rules of the technique imply its purpose, but an agent cannot tell from the text which of the two Jaimini drishti tools to pick for a given question.

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