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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world calculation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the computational outputs (reductions, Pinda) but says nothing about input prerequisites or how results are scoped; with annotations doing the safety work, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences with the technique name front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the lead token 'ASHTAKAVARGA.' is a bare label rather than a load-bearing clause.

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?

With an output schema present and a 75%-documented input schema, most detail is carried structurally; the description supplies the computational scope, which is the main missing context. The one gap is not noting the birth-data/coordinates requirement, but that is captured by the schema's required fields.

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 coverage is 75%, so parameter documentation largely lives in the schema, and the description contributes no parameter-level detail (e.g. date range limits or the place-vs-coordinates alternative). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds nothing.

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 names the specific techniques computed (Bhinnashtakavarga for seven planets, Sarvashtakavarga, Trikona/Ekadhipatya reductions, Pinda), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. Compared to siblings like calculate_strength_profile or calculate_gochara, however, it doesn't explicitly say why this differs from those general strength/transit tools, leaving overlap unresolved.

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?

'Use for sign strength and transit support' gives an implied context for invocation, but no alternatives are named and no when-not conditions are stated. An agent cannot tell from this alone when to prefer it over calculate_strength_profile or analyze_transits beyond a vague thematic hint.

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