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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool shows discrepancies and emphasizes that different ayanamsas are both correct, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or the nature of the output beyond showing differences. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description is well-structured and front-loads the purpose. It is a bit verbose with the star and the final sentence about telling the person, but each sentence adds context. It is concise enough and effectively communicates the key concept without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no schema coverage) and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It thoroughly explains the conceptual purpose but omits practical details on how to construct the call (e.g., which parameters are required, how to specify the chart, or how to select ayanamsas). The agent would likely need to inspect the schema for guidance, which is not ideal.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and 7 parameters, yet the description only hints at the 'ayanamsas' parameter ('several ayanamsas'). It does not explain how to specify the chart (date, time, place, chart_id, geonameid) or how the ayanamsas list is used. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess.

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 clearly states the tool's function: comparing the same chart across multiple ayanamsas to show where differences change signs or nakshatras versus fractional degrees. It uses a specific verb ('shows') and resource ('the same map') and explains the exact use case, making it highly distinguishable from sibling tools without needing to compare schemas.

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 provides a clear scenario for use: answering why another site shows a different lagna or Moon sign. It implicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the appropriate situation.

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