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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — the deterministic selection rules so the agent can explain results, and the presence of a `checked` audit field showing non-selected grahas. It gives no sense of response size, whether remedies are static catalogue entries, or any rate/credits caveat beyond the cost line, so this is additive but not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and outcome, then the selection rules, then the audit field and the coordinate requirement — a logical order with no filler. It is dense (BPHS section citations, inline endpoint paths) but every clause carries selection logic; only the scriptural verse numbers border on unnecessary for an invoking agent.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return shapes; it still usefully names `checked`. Combined with the cost tier and the explicit 'coordinates are required', an agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor residual gap: no note on whether results are exhaustive across all ten remedy types or how large the payload can get.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested birth-data description already documents date/time formats, coordinate requirements, timezone handling and the types filter. The description's only parameter-related additions ('Coordinates are required', 'Sade Sati on targetDate') restate what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('finds the grahas that are weak or afflicted ... and returns their remedies') and goes further to enumerate the exact selection predicates (Shadbala below BPHS 27.32-33, debilitated, combust, present dosha). An agent can distinguish this chart-driven derivation from the sibling name-driven tools (remedies_by_graha, remedies_by_dosha, remedies_by_type, remedies_catalogue) without opening any schema.

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 criteria list effectively defines the use case: supply birth data and get whatever grahas/doshas qualify, with `checked` showing everything tested. It also flags the hard requirement ('Coordinates are required') and the targetDate hook for Sade Sati. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when NOT to use it, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.

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