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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description adds real value beyond them: it describes the returned content shape (each planet by sign with own/exalted/debilitated/neutral state plus a pakka-ghar match flag) and flags a source-authority caveat about the single-school Lal Kitab interpretation used.

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 prose is tight and front-loaded: mechanics first, returned content second, caveat last, with bracket metadata kept separate. Every sentence earns its place, though the metadata block adds tokens the surrounding structured context already supplies.

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 detailed, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. For a 15-parameter tool at 33% description coverage, however, the description leaves the agent without enough to configure sidereal/zodiac/house options confidently.

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 would need to compensate and does not. It lists the four required inputs and the cost, but says nothing about zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsa, cosmogram, or fields — parameters whose meaning an agent must infer from bare enum values.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (Lal Kitab teva) and immediately states the defining mechanics: fixed-house chart where house = sign (Aries=1..Pisces=12), no ASC rotation. That single clause distinguishes it from the generic kundli and varga chart siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

The description explains what the chart is but never says when to reach for it versus siblings such as astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_lal_kundali or astroway_vedic_kundli. The YELLOW note about school consensus is a caveat, not usage guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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