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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine extra context: the bounded age range 0..35, the caveat that output is a 'rough timing index', the required parameters, and the cost tier (20 credits). It stops short of describing pagination or output shape, but the annotations and output schema carry that.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, followed by a compact bracketed metadata block (group, endpoint, required, cost). Every element earns its place, though the bracketed lines are boilerplate rather than tool-specific insight.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers purpose, scope, and cost. What it lacks is enough parameter guidance for a 15-param tool with only 33% schema coverage, so it is only minimally adequate 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 should compensate — but it merely restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema already marks as required. It supplies no meaning for the eleven optional parameters (fields, precision, ayanamsa, timezone, houseSystem, etc.), leaving most of the low-coverage surface undocumented in prose.

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+resource: a year-by-year (age 0..35) Lal Kitab dasha snapshot showing the running house, its ruler, and the ruler's state. The 'age-by-age' scope is distinctive. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_dasha, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

'Use as a rough timing index' gives a soft usage cue and a hedge about precision, which is helpful context. But it names no alternative tool and gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions, so the agent must infer how this differs from the other Lal Kitab dasha tools.

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