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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the accuracy-gated path, including chart-anchor check and rewrite retry, and mentions the response envelope includes citation_status and accuracy-gate notes. This gives meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover failure modes or performance characteristics.

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 a single, compact paragraph that leads with the core purpose, then adds accuracy details, response envelope notes, and lang. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly better structured with bullets for readability.

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?

The tool has a nested birth_data object and no output schema. The description explains the response envelope concept but does not detail the structure or potential error conditions. While required parameters are in the schema, the absence of an output schema makes the description incomplete for an agent expecting a precise return format.

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 only 33% (only 'question' has a description among top-level params). The description adds nothing about 'question' or 'birth_data' semantics; it only mentions 'lang' which is already enumerated in the schema. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meaning underspecified.

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 clearly states the tool answers a question via grounded synthesis from the birth chart, and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing 'synthesis' rather than raw facts (get_chart_facts), panchang (get_panchang), or compatibility (guna_milan). The verb 'answer' and resource 'birth chart' are explicit.

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 usage for synthesis questions but never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools or states when not to use it. No alternative tool is named, leaving the agent to infer based on the phrase 'grounded synthesis answer'. This is adequate but not explicit guidance.

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