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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: Yuddha (planetary war) is deferred, Abda/Masa rulers are currently zeroed to avoid double-counting Vara, and the call costs 20 credits. Disclosing degraded/incomplete output this way is exactly the value structured fields cannot convey.

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 substantive content is front-loaded into a single dense sentence enumerating the computed components, followed immediately by the caveats that matter. The bracketed metadata lines are boilerplate but compact, and no sentence is wasted.

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 explained, and the description adequately covers what is computed and what is intentionally omitted. However, for a read-only computation tool with 15 parameters, it leaves the non-required configuration parameters entirely unaddressed, which is a notable gap.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it only restates the four required parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude), which are already marked required in the schema. It adds no meaning for the other eleven parameters such as ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, or the compact-mode fields/precision options.

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 the specific Shadbala component (Kala Bala) and enumerates exactly which sub-components it computes (Nathonnatha, Paksha, Tribhaga, Ayana, etc.), so an agent knows precisely what is being calculated. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like astroway_vedic_shadbala_full or the other individual balas.

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. The description never says when this sub-bala should be called versus shadbala_full or the other five balas, nor any prerequisites beyond the required params. Usage is entirely implied by the name.

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