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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it computes the birth chart, detects which dasha systems apply, and returns the current period per system. It lacks disclosure of edge cases (e.g. sensitivity to birth-time accuracy, computation cost) and whether any permissions/limits apply, so it falls short of exhaustive.

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?

Labeled sections (WHEN TO USE / WHAT IT DOES / RETURNS / NEXT) front-load the routing decision and keep each sentence earning its place. No filler or redundancy.

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 the description needn't define return values, and its RETURN summary plus NEXT guidance round out a 9-param tool. The one real gap is the complete absence of parameter explanation against 0% 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 0% with 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'depth' is indirectly referenced ('sub-periods at the requested depth'); birth date/time, latitude, longitude, timezone_offset, and their defaults are never explained. Parameter names are mostly self-evident, which keeps this above a 1.

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 ('Calculate all applicable dasha systems') and explicitly distinguishes itself from Vimsottari-only analysis, naming the sibling systems (Ashtottari, Kalachakra, Narayana, Shoola). An agent can tell it apart from calculate_vimsottari_dasha and calculate_birth_chart without opening a 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 (need analysis beyond Vimsottari), and the NEXT line names the alternative (calculate_birth_chart) with the exact condition that selects it ('if you only need Vimsottari dasha'). Routing is unambiguous.

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