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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly doesn't: it never says whether the call is read-only, what the response shape is, or how it handles ambiguity. A hint about the time_ambiguous/utc_offset recovery path exists, but only in the schema, not the description. The behavioral profile is thin for an 8-parameter tool.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the ayanamsa constraint, then the routing rule. No filler. Slightly terse given the parameter surface, but structurally efficient.

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 no explanation, but with 8 parameters at 13% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves most inputs (date/time/place vs. chart_id/geonameid) unexplained, including how chart_id and explicit date/time/place interact. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 13% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. It explains ayanamsas (count range 2–5, examples) but says nothing about date, time, place, chart_id, geonameid, utc_offset, or lang semantics beyond what the schema enumerates.

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 states a specific verb+resource: comparing a single chart across 2–5 ayanamsas and reporting whether the lagna sign, Moon sign, or nakshatra change. It distinguishes itself from verify_external_chart by name. It stops short of fully spelling out the scope (e.g., which chart fields are compared) but is clearly not a tautology.

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 gives an explicit trigger scenario ("почему на другом сайте другая лагна", when you don't have the other site's numbers) and an explicit alternative for the opposite case ("есть их числа — verify_external_chart"). The when/when-not/alternative triad is fully present.

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