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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context — credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the concrete endpoint — but says nothing about how the chart is computed, caching, or determinism.

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?

Tight, front-loaded block: name and interpretive meaning first, then bracketed metadata lines that each carry distinct information (group, endpoint, required inputs, cost). The endpoint line is of marginal value to an agent, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 — that lightens the burden considerably. However, for a 15-parameter domain-specific tool where an agent may not know what a D27 divisional chart is, the description gives no selection context and leaves most parameter semantics to a partially documented schema.

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 carries a real compensation burden, and it does not meet it: it merely restates the four required fields already listed in the schema's `required` array. The nine-plus undocumented parameters (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, and the bare date/time/latitude/longitude) get no clarification from the description.

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 the resource precisely (Saptavimsamsa/Bhamsa, D27 varga chart) and adds the interpretive domain it addresses (strengths, weaknesses, stamina), which distinguishes it from the other ~20 varga siblings by meaning, not just by number. It never uses a verb like 'compute' or 'generate', but the resource and scope 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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: it does not say when a D27 chart is the right choice versus D9, D30, D60, or the general kundli tool. The only orienting metadata is the required-parameter list and credit cost, which are invocation facts, not selection guidance.

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