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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does not adjudicate correctness, which is a useful limitation. It also hints that it will explore ayanamsa and time-zone/dst variations. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output it produces, or any other behavioral constraints, leaving important gaps.

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 compact and every clause conveys relevant information: the triggering scenario, the parameter numbering, and the tool's limitation. It is front-loaded with the main use case. While it is a run-on with embedded clauses, it is not verbose and could be considered appropriately concise for the amount of context given.

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 complexity (10 optional parameters, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to supply the external values (via moon_sign/nakshatra/lagna_sign or via chart_id), whether date/time/place must be provided to compute our chart, or what the output should look like. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly based solely on this description, even with the output schema present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameter meanings. It explains the numbering for signs (moon_sign, lagna_sign) and nakshatra, and mentions ayanamsa and time as variables. But it leaves date, time, place, chart_id, geonameid, and lang unexplained, and does not clarify how external numbers map to the parameters. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.

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 conveys that the tool addresses a mismatch between externally provided chart values and our own chart, searching for explanations in ayanamsa or time settings. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the scenario is specific enough to distinguish it from related tools like natal_chart or compare_methods. The verb 'verify' is implied through the context of checking external numbers.

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?

The description provides a clear usage scenario: when a user supplies numbers from another site or astrologer that disagree with our chart, this tool is used to investigate the cause (ayanamsa or time-related factors). It also states a limitation ('doesn't decide who is right'), setting expectation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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