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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the source citation (Ashant Vol. III), which are useful, but says nothing about return shape, whether pakka ghar/own sign are evaluated per planet, or aggregation behavior — the burden there is only partly met by the output schema.

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 scoring rubric is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, followed by compact bracketed metadata blocks that are easy to scan. Nothing is padded, though the rubric's notation (+2 pakka ghar) assumes domain familiarity.

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 described, and the scoring formula gives the agent what it needs to interpret the number. However, for a 15-parameter tool at 33% schema coverage with no alternative-routing guidance, the definition leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 — but it only restates the four required parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude) already marked required in the schema. The numerous optional chart-shaping parameters (ayanamsa, houseSystem, zodiacType, fields, precision) get no explanation here, leaving the coverage gap unaddressed.

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 and computation — a Lal Kitab fortune (kismat) score — and exposes the exact scoring rubric (+2 pakka ghar, +1 own sign, +2 exalted, −2 debilitated), so an agent knows precisely what it produces. It is distinguishable from siblings like prosperity or life_graph by its single fortune score. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is a clear 4 rather than 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 versus the other ~15 Lal Kitab endpoints (prosperity, life_graph, teva, etc.), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. 'Higher = more fortunate per K' explains output interpretation, not usage. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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