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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ('the score, the ceiling actually applicable, and an interpretive band') and importantly reveals that the band labels are 'a convention laid over it and tagged as such,' preventing the agent from treating them as classical quantities. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover error conditions or explicitly confirm read-only behavior beyond the 'Get' verb.

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 four sentences are tight and each earns its place: the definition, the use-case question, the maximum-score illustration, and the return-with-caveat summary. The core meaning is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is computed, what the return values are, and warns about the interpretive caveat. It could additionally clarify whether the result is returned per planet or as an aggregate, but the phrasing 'each planet's strength' reasonably implies per-planet output. Missing details are minor rather than critical.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented chart_id parameter. It does not: chart_id is never mentioned or explained. The parameter's purpose is inferable from the tool's subject matter and the singular required id, but the description itself adds no parameter-level semantics. A short note confirming which chart the id refers to would have raised this score.

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 precise definition: 'Get Vimsopaka bala — each planet's dignity-weighted strength across the 16 vargas.' This names a specific verb, resource, and scope, and the use-case question distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_grahas or get_strengths by centering on divisional charts (vargas). No ambiguity remains about what the tool computes.

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 gives an explicit ideal-use sentence: 'Use this to answer "which planets are strong across the divisional charts?"' This is clear contextual guidance. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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