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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the cost (20 credits, Tier 2), the endpoint, and the required parameter set, which is genuine context beyond annotations. It does not describe response shape or computational caveats, so it adds value without being rich.

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 substantive content is two tightly written sentences with the output inventory front-loaded, followed by a compact bracketed metadata block. Nothing is wasted, though the inventory enumeration is dense and the metadata block restates schema/annotation-adjacent facts.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 15-parameter computation with 33% schema coverage, the description omits any guidance on time/place inputs, ayanamsa choice, or compact mode, leaving the agent reliant on raw schema fields.

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 should compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it mentions none of them. Devices like timezone vs timezoneOffset, fields, precision, and ayanamsa carry real invocation risk here and are left entirely to the schema.

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 a specific resource (Arudhas/padas) and enumerates the exact contents: A1..A12 Bhava, S1..S12 Surya, M1..M12 Chandra, and Graha Arudhas. An agent can tell this is the comprehensive padas computation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like astroway_vedic_jaimini_upapada or _karakas, so it falls 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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. The BPHS verse citation is a provenance note, not usage guidance. The sibling upapada tool returns a subset, but the router is never told which to pick.

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