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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the cycle length, per-house duration, starting age, attribution to the K. Ashant tradition, endpoint, and a 20-credit (Tier 2) cost warning. This is substantive computational and cost context.

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 core computational definition is front-loaded, and the bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost) is scannable. Fairly efficient, though the bracket block is somewhat conventional filler rather than description prose.

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 astronomical/cycle semantics are covered. But the dangling `method` reference, absent usage guidance, and undocumented parameters leave gaps for a 15-parameter tool. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it repeats only the required list already present in the schema. Worse, it references a `method` field that does not exist in the input schema, which could mislead an agent looking for that property.

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 resource and mechanism: 'Lal Kitab dasha: 35-year cycle, 1 house per ~2.917 years from age 0 forward.' An agent can identify the technique precisely. However, with ~150 sibling dasha tools (vimshottari, shodashottari, yogini, etc.), it never differentiates itself from those alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives despite a dense field of sibling dasha tools. The only directional hint is that an alternate 38-year implementation exists 'in some authors,' which is a variant note rather than usage guidance. An agent gets no signal on when to prefer this over the other dasha tools.

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