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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds real behavioral context by naming what is deliberately omitted (prediction prose, annual-chart emulation, remedies) and the gating conditions (atomic extraction, scan verification, lineage review).

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the limitation clause second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is dense and the tool's input requirements are never surfaced.

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 return values need not be explained, and the behavioral framing is adequate. For a chart tool whose input is governed by a non-obvious anyOf (place OR latitude/longitude/timezone) with six undocumented parameters, the description leaves the calling agent to infer input requirements entirely from a low-coverage schema.

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?

Nine parameters with only 33% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about name, date, time, the anyOf place-vs-coordinates constraint, or the timezone fallback. With coverage this low, the description is expected to compensate for the undocumented inputs and does not.

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 transformation ('converts verified natal placements to Lal Kitab fixed houses') and the return artifact ('source locators for all nine planet-house sections'), which sets it apart from neighbors like analyze_remedies and explore_lal_kitab_sources. It is clear, but it never names the sibling it should be preferred over, so it stops short of the top score.

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 withheld-qualities clause implies when this tool is appropriate (structural/source work rather than prediction) and effectively warns against expecting remedies or annual-chart output. However, it gives no positive 'use this when…' trigger and does not route the agent to an alternative tool.

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