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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower and the description clears it by adding real behavior: only one varga per call, and D60 demands an accurate birth time. The data-quality dependency caveat is genuinely useful context not available in structured fields.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the single-chart constraint and then the selection guidance. The parenthetical enumeration of varga codes partially restates the schema enum, which is slight redundancy, but the rest is waste-free.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description adequately covers scope, varga selection, and precision caveats for a 10-parameter tool; the main omission is any hint about the place-vs-coordinates input branch, which the schema does document.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description compensates by mapping astrological topics to specific varga codes and flagging the birth-time precision requirement tied to D60. It adds real interpretive meaning beyond the enum list, though it says nothing about the topic, date/time, or coordinate alternatives.

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?

Opens with a precise scope statement ("ONE DIVISIONAL CHART") and names the concrete outputs: placements, lords, topic emphasis. It clearly delimits the tool to a single varga, which distinguishes it from broader synthesis tools, though it never names a sibling alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives actionable selection guidance for the core parameter (D9 marriage/dharma, D10 career, D7 children, D4 property, D24 education, D60 fine detail), which is exactly what an agent needs to pick a varga. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it.

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