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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the operation is a fixed lookup (values are constants independent of the chart), it is a Tier 2 paid call costing 20 credits, and it lists required inputs. That is more than most read-only tool descriptions provide.

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?

What the tool computes is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact metadata block. The constant table earns its place by defining the output semantically, and there is no redundant prose. Only minor overhead comes from bracketed operational tags.

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 annotations cover safety, so the description need not address reversibility. It supplies the required inputs, cost tier, and the crucial fact that results are chart-independent constants, which is the key thing an agent needs to interpret output. It could still note whether optional chart parameters (ayanamsa, houseSystem) affect this specific computation.

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%, so the description should compensate, but it merely restates the four required parameters already marked required in the schema (date, time, latitude, longitude). It adds no meaning for the eleven other parameters (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsa variants) and gives no syntax hints beyond what the schema documents.

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?

The description names the specific Shadbala component (Naisargika Bala) and explains what it yields: fixed natural strength per planet, going so far as to list the constant values. This distinguishes it from the sibling Shadbala components (cheshta, dig, drik, kala, sthana, full), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with shadbala_full. The verb is implicit ('compute/return') but the resource and its meaning are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the component name and the listed constants; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over astroway_vedic_shadbala_full or the other Shadbala siblings. The endpoint/required/cost lines give operational context but not selection guidance. An agent can infer the use case but must reason it out.

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