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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful pipeline detail that place and IANA timezone are resolved internally before transits are computed, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or what happens if the place is not found in the catalogue.

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 with no wasted words; the key scoping constraint (verified place, avoiding manual entry) leads the sentence. Efficient, though very terse for a 5-parameter tool.

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 the annotations carry the safety profile. The gap is the undocumented parameters, particularly the required natalLagnaSign, which the description does not address.

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 0% across 5 parameters. The description only loosely gestures at 'place' and the timezone handling, leaving date, time, language, and especially the required natalLagnaSign (a 0-11 ascendant index) entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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+resource: it resolves a catalogue place and its IANA timezone, then calculates sidereal transits (gochara). The 'from a verified place' scoping distinguishes it from the sibling calculate_gochara, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'avoiding manual coordinate and offset entry' implies this is the choice when you have a place name rather than raw coordinates, giving implied usage context. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states a when-not condition.

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