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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note that the requested Dasha period depends on asOfIso, no statement about whether results are deterministic given birth data, and no hint about the resolution strategy used when 'place' and explicit coordinates disagree.

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 single sentence is short but it is under-specified rather than concise — it consumes the whole description with text that duplicates the title and earns no place. There is no front-loaded distinction or actionable detail an agent could use.

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 10-parameter tool with 5 required fields, an anyOf location constraint, an enum selector, and 30% schema coverage, this description is completely inadequate. It leaves the agent unable to tell which system to select or how to satisfy the location requirements; only the presence of an output schema saves any part of the contract.

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 30%, and the description contributes zero parameter meaning. The 7 enum values for 'system' (vimshottari, yogini, ashtottari, kalachakra, narayana, chara, status) are unexplained, 'asOfIso' is never defined, and the anyOf branch logic between 'place' and latitude/longitude/timezone is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 guidance on when to invoke this tool versus the ~50 sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative calculation endpoints. Nothing in the text helps an agent decide between this and, for example, calculate_gochara_from_known_place or calculate_strength_profile.

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