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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and required inputs, which is useful, but says nothing about latency, caching, or the deduplication behavior's practical effect.

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 definition is front-loaded with the tool's output components, followed by compact bracketed metadata. No filler sentences; every line carries information, though the bracketed block is mildly redundant with schema fields.

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 explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. For a 15-parameter tool the description is adequate, though the low schema coverage of several optional parameters leaves minor gaps.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate, yet it merely restates the four required parameters already marked required in the schema. It adds no meaning for ayanamsa, timezone, houseSystem, fields or precision, leaving several parameters undocumented.

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 computation and enumerates its exact components (Day-lord, Hora-lord, Asc-sign/star/sub, Moon-sign/star/sub), so an agent knows precisely what is returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely named siblings such as astroway_vedic_kp_horary or astroway_vedic_kp_significators.

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 horary timing analysis" gives an implied context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, nor any routing to alternative KP tools. The agent must infer that this is a supporting call rather than a standalone horary query.

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