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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that the verdict is deterministic, that a confidence score and contributing factors are produced, and that the result is grounded in a chart cast for the question moment. It does not state read-only/permission properties, but the described computation makes the non-mutating nature evident.

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 labeled WHEN TO USE / WHAT IT DOES / RETURNS structure is front-loaded and scannable, with no filler. The inline RETURNS paragraph is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which is the only small waste.

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 an 8-parameter tool the description is silent on how to supply the inputs, which is the main gap; however, an output schema exists so enumerating the return shape is not strictly required. It is adequate for selection but thin for correct invocation.

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 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at a 'moment chart' (implying year/month/day/hour) but says nothing about latitude/longitude being required geolocation, the question string format, or the timezone_offset default of 5.5.

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 resource: 'Answer a Prashna (horary) question using a moment chart', and the WHAT IT DOES section pins down the mechanism (cast chart, map domain, produce verdict). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_birth_chart or ask_cosmic_advisor without opening either 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?

The WHEN TO USE block gives an explicit trigger condition: a focused yes/no/maybe question wanting horary guidance. It lacks any exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer ask_cosmic_advisor instead), so an agent could still hesitate between the two advisory tools.

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