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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read. The description adds genuinely non-redundant operational context: the POST endpoint and a cost of 20 credits (Tier 2), which is exactly the kind of rate/cost disclosure that annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing anything about the returned structure, but an output schema exists so that is not required here.

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 core formula is front-loaded in the first sentence and the operational metadata is cleanly bracketed at the end. No filler sentences. The drishti-rule sentence is dense but legitimately needed to interpret the result, so it earns its place.

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 15-parameter domain calculation the definition covers the mathematics well and an output schema handles the return shape. What is missing is family context: sitting among six Shadbala components plus a full composite, the agent gets no signal about which to call or whether this feeds into shadbala_full. Adequate but with a real gap for tool selection.

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 only 33% across 15 parameters, so the description carries extra burden — yet it says nothing about any parameter beyond restating the four required ones, which the schema already marks as required. The many undescribed inputs (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, the raw coordinates) get no clarification, and the drishti narrative is about the output, not the inputs.

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 computed quantity (net aspectual strength) with the exact formula and the BPHS chapter-verse citation, plus the drishti rules used. An agent knows precisely what this returns. It does not, however, draw any contrast with the sibling Shadbala tools (drik vs dig vs kala vs shadbala_full), so differentiation rests on the name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — no statement of when Drik Bala is the right component versus astroway_vedic_shadbala_full or the other five Shadbala parts, and no prerequisites or follow-up suggestions. The description is purely a formula spec, leaving routing entirely to inference from the name.

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