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). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: failure handling ('unsupported lineages are withheld'), deterministic tie-breaks ('visible tie-breaks'), and scope limits ('never prescribes initiation-only mantra or claims one uniquely correct deity'). Return format is not described, but an output schema exists, so that is not a gap.

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, front-loaded with the calculation and method, followed by guarantees. Dense but every clause carries information; the jargon (Rashi Drishti, occupants) is inherent to the domain rather than filler.

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 complex 10-parameter calculation tool, the description adequately covers purpose, failure behavior, and scope guarantees, and an output schema means return values need not be explained. However, it leaves usage routing and most parameter semantics unaddressed, so it is minimum-viable rather than complete.

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% across 10 parameters. The description's 'explicit lineage preset' touches the lineage enum, but date, time, name, latitude, longitude, timezoneOffset, and birthTimeAccuracyMinutes carry no meaning in the description. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculates') with a precise, distinctive resource set ('Iṣṭa, Dharma, Pālana, Guru and Kula Devatā anchors'), which separates it from generic siblings like analyze_spiritual_path or calculate_jaimini. It also names its method ('occupants, Rashi Drishti, then sign lord'). It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it displaces, so 4 rather than 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The statement 'Unsupported lineages are withheld rather than silently mixed' is a behavioral constraint, not routing advice. An agent gets no signal about when this beats analyze_spiritual_path or analyze_nakshatra_profile.

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