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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety burden is lifted; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the response shape ('trigger conditions + recommended remedy'), the interpretive source, and the operational cost (20 credits, Tier 2). It omits auth requirements and any latency/pagination expectations, but for a deterministic read-only calculation this is solid.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences that establish what, what-you-get, and provenance, followed by a compact metadata block. The bracketed 'Required' line duplicates the schema's required array and costs a line, but overall it is tight and free of filler.

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 not strictly needed, and the definition still covers purpose, output gist, source, required inputs, and cost. The notable gap is the absence of any routing guidance against the overlapping lal_kitab_rin / doshas siblings, which is where an agent would most likely err.

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 and does not. It repeats the four required fields already enforced by the schema and says nothing about the ayanamsa/zodiacType/houseSystem enums, the compact 'fields' projection, or the timezone-vs-timezoneOffset tradeoff that materially affects results.

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 verb ('Detects') and names the exact resource and its six sub-types (Pitri/Stree/Kanya/Atma/Rishi/Daiva Rin), plus the doctrinal basis (Lal Kitab planet-affliction patterns), so the agent knows what computation is performed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_rin, which an agent would have no way to choose between.

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 statement and no named alternatives, despite the crowded Lal Kitab sibling set (lal_kitab_remedies, doshas_lal_kitab_rin, doshas_lal_kitab_pitra, doshas_lal_kitab_full). The only usage-ish content is the bracketed 'Required: date, time, latitude, longitude', which merely restates schema requirements.

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