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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add one valuable trait: 'Толкования нет' — the agent knows the output is raw astrological data and must not expect conclusions. But it omits anything about permissions, the date/time/place vs. chart_id input modes, or rate/ambiguity behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the call returns and then the topic-selection rule. No filler, though the listing of topics in the first clause duplicates the topic enum already in the schema.

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, but for a 9-parameter tool with a required-topic plus optional chart-input options, the description leaves the input model largely unexplained. An agent cannot tell how date/time/place relate to chart_id or what utc_offset's retry flow implies without opening the 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 11% with 9 parameters, and the description explains only topic (how to pick it). The other eight — date, time, place, lang, ayanamsa, chart_id, geonameid, utc_offset — get no meaning added beyond their names, and the crucial interaction between birth data and chart_id is never clarified.

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 concretely: for a given life-topic question it returns the topic's houses with sign and ruler, the grahas in them, the topic's varga, and the current period. That is specific enough to separate it from natal_chart, varga_chart, or dasha_timeline, though the verb itself ('get/retrieve') is left implicit.

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?

It tells the agent to pick topic itself based on the question and warns that no interpretation is produced, which is genuine guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one (e.g. vs. natal_chart or explain_chart_section), so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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