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

Annotations already declare read-only, closed-world, and idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial extra context: deterministic JPL DE440 computation with no LLM, a meta.result_sha256 for verification, and the pricing/payment model ($0.15 per call via x402 or MPP, first 3 free). It stops short of describing error handling or rate limits beyond price, so 4 rather than 5.

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 dense but front-loads the substantive output content first, then the operational meta (determinism, hash, pricing). Every sentence carries information, though the pricing/REST-URL sentence is somewhat promotional and could be tighter.

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?

For a 10-parameter, nested-schema tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of enumerating what results contain (rule applied, dates, severity, cancellations, types, directions, 100-year cycles) and the verification hash. It is largely complete, though a brief note on output shape or failure modes would close the remaining gap.

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 90% with 10 parameters including a nested options object, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description only loosely maps to parameters (e.g. 'the status on a given date' for on_date, 'start/end dates over 100 years') without adding syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names three specific analyses (Manglik/Kuja, Kaal Sarp, Sade Sati/Dhaiya) with their sub-details (severity, cancellations, type/direction, start/end dates), which is a precise verb+resource statement. It clearly separates this tool from siblings like kundli, natal_chart, or vedic_report by scoping it to dosha-specific computations.

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?

Usage is implied by the content (use this for dosha analysis) and the description notes the 'on a given date' mode and the free first 3 calls, but it never states when to prefer this over kundli, vedic_report, or other siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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