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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is lower; it adds the required-input behavior (birth date, time, city) and describes the shape of the result (Mahadasha/Antardasha, dates, karmic significance, calendar link). It omits any error/permission context but is solidly additive.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and inputs before the return-value list, with no filler sentences. Slightly dense in the second half but every clause carries information.

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 restated, yet the description spends much of its length on them while leaving half the parameters undocumented and the alias pairs unexplained. Adequate but leaves real gaps for a 10-parameter tool.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and only does so for three (date, time with default, city). It ignores country, birth_date, birth_time, target_date, user_prompt, and birth_country, and does not resolve the ambiguity between 'date' vs 'birth_date' or 'city' vs 'birth_city' aliases.

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 a specific verb and named resource (Parashara Vimshottari Dasha 120-year timeline) and clarifies the input subject (person or founding event). This is distinguishable from siblings like calculate_chart or get_horoscope without opening any schema.

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?

Mentions it corresponds to the /dasha slash command, which implies routing context, but never says when to prefer it over calculate_chart or get_interpretation, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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