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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the tie-break chain, the refusal behavior for unsupported lineages, and two explicit scope exclusions (no initiation-only mantra, no single uniquely correct deity). This meaningfully constrains interpretation of the output.

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?

Three dense sentences with the computed outputs and method front-loaded and the scope caveats at the end. No filler, though the astrological jargon packs several clauses per sentence.

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 needn't be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. But for a 10-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description omits any guidance on the required name/date/time inputs or the coordinates-vs-place branch, leaving gaps an agent must resolve from the schema alone.

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 10 parameters and only 30% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only gestures at the lineage preset and tie-breaks without explaining lineage enum values, the place-vs-coordinates duality, timezone handling, or birthTimeAccuracyMinutes. Most parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 verb (calculates) and precisely enumerates the outputs: Iṣṭa, Dharma, Pālana, Guru and Kula Devatā anchors. It also names the method (lineage preset, occupants, Rashi Drishti, sign lord) which distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_spiritual_path or analyze_remedies.

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?

It implies when to use it (when an explicit lineage preset is available) and states that unsupported lineages are withheld rather than silently mixed, which is a useful boundary condition. However, it never names an alternative tool or tells the agent what to do when the lineage is unsupported.

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