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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: every candidate 'exposes its source and publication gate', and it explicitly withholds unreviewed gemstones, initiation-only mantras, fasting and costly rituals. That content-gating behavior is exactly the kind of trait an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 sentences is a reasonable size for a tool of this complexity, and the withholding clause is well-placed. But the first sentence is a dense run-on list of jargon nouns that buries the primary purpose rather than front-loading it.

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 12-parameter tool with a nested preferences object, this description covers only the output-gating behavior; usage routing and parameter semantics are absent. With an output schema present it need not explain return values, but the missing when-to-use and parameter guidance leaves it incomplete for safe 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 only 25% across 12 parameters including a nested preferences object, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at 'belief/cost/burden preferences' and 'optional charity', which loosely map to allowCharity/allowPrayer/maximumCost/maximumBurden, but says nothing about the required place vs latitude/longitude/timezone disjunction, birthTimeAccuracyMinutes, asOfDate, or the enum meanings.

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 title names a concrete deliverable (a source-grounded chart remedy protocol) and the description enumerates the inputs it fuses (evidence ledger, preferences, Iṣṭa/Devatā, Muhurta routing). However the verb is 'combines', which describes pipeline stages rather than the output, and the heavy jargon (Iṣṭa, Devatā, Muhurta-as-remedy routing) leaves the core purpose somewhat abstract. It never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling suggest_safe_practice.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer an alternative, or any prerequisite beyond the implicit need for birth data. Siblings like suggest_safe_practice, calculate_devata_profile, and find_muhurta are obviously adjacent but are never referenced as alternatives or exclusions.

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