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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required input set, the dual natal/mundane modes, and what the call returns (active yogas, classical definitions, ERUX divisional breakdown link).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples followed by prerequisites and return contents. The Discord/Google Chat slash-command sentence is the weakest line but does aid context matching; overall no significant padding.

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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the description need not explain return values, and it still summarizes them. It covers the two invocation modes and their inputs; the only real gap is that it never explains how the varga/divisional link or alias parameters should be used, which is minor given full schema coverage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description names only date/time/city/country and is silent on the four birth_* alias parameters and user_prompt, so it adds little and does not resolve the alias-vs-base-param ambiguity.

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 precise verb+resource ('Identify ... Vedic Yogas present in a birth or mundane chart') and enumerates concrete examples (Raja, Dhana, Pancha Mahapurusha, Gaja Kesari, Budhaditya). No sibling tool covers yogas — calculate_chart, calculate_dasha, and get_interpretation are clearly different resources, so an agent can route without opening 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?

Gives a clear precondition: birth details ('date','time','city') OR country name ('country'), and frames the two modes (natal vs. mundane chart). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over calculate_chart for the same chart or note any exclusions/limitations.

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