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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that two ladders are deliberately not computed and are reported as deferred rather than guessed, which is a meaningful non-obvious behavior. It doesn't cover error behavior or permissions, but the main limitation is well disclosed.

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 front-loaded: the main purpose is in the first sentence, technical terms are defined in the next, and the important caveat closes it. Every sentence adds value.

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 domain-specific tool with no output schema, the description defines the main avastha ladders and the deferred categories, so an agent can understand what the tool returns. It could be more complete by addressing the planets parameter, but the core selection and invocation context is 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% and the description does not explain chart_id or planets, nor how planets filters the output. The phrase 'each graha' weakly implies scope, but it doesn't compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get planetary avasthas') and clarifies the concept as maturity, alertness, and mood states of each graha. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools such as get_grahas or get_strengths, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving computed avastha ladders and explicitly states that lajjitadi and sayanadi are not computed, which sets expectations. However, it never says when to choose this tool over an alternative or names a fallback for the deferred ladders.

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