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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are evidence-first with raw/effective severity and explicit cancellation/mitigation evidence, which is useful context but describes output content more than behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence dense with specific terminology and no filler. Efficient, though the heavy noun stacking borders on jargon that an unfamiliar agent may need to parse carefully.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 10 parameters at 30% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the definition leaves the agent under-equipped on how to call it and when it applies.

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, and the description mentions none of them. It does not explain the date/time vs place vs coordinates anyOf requirement, the IANA timezone requirement, or how birthTimeAccuracyMinutes affects results, leaving a significant documentation 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?

Names the specific calculations (Mangal/Kuja, Kaal Sarpa, Kemadruma, Pitru-related structural candidates) with a clear verb, which distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_yogas or analyze_badhaka that handle other chart patterns.

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?

No guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_yogas, analyze_badhaka, or calculate_strength_profile. Nothing tells the agent which chart questions this answers or any prerequisite (e.g., a chart must already be computed).

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