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 burden is lifted. The description adds useful context beyond that: it discloses the return content (active yogas, classical definitions, link to ERUX divisional varga breakdown), which is more than the annotations provide.

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 before preconditions and output, with no filler. The middle slash-command sentence is marginally expendable but overall efficient.

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 re-explained, and the description still summarizes them. The main gap is parameter ambiguity – with 9 params including duplicated alias sets at 0% coverage, an agent still cannot confidently choose between city and birth_city or know what user_prompt does.

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 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It mentions only date/time/city/country and ignores the duplicate birth_city/birth_date/birth_time/birth_country aliases and user_prompt entirely, leaving an agent unclear on which of the parallel parameter sets to populate or why both exist.

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 ('Identify') and resource ('auspicious & powerful classical Vedic Yogas') and grounds it with concrete examples (Raja Yogas, Dhana Yogas, Pancha Mahapurusha, Gaja Kesari, Budhaditya). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_chart or calculate_dasha, which compute rather than identify named yogas.

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 an explicit precondition ('Requires birth details date/time/city or country name') and maps to the Discord/Google Chat slash command. It does not, however, state when to prefer a sibling tool or any exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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