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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: a deterministic engine that 'never invokes another AI model', a fixed screening pass, contradiction checks and coverage reporting. It omits cost/latency or result-size behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the routing directive in caps, then scope, then the specialist-tool exclusion, then the determinism note. The long life-domain list is dense but functional; a couple of clauses could be trimmed without loss.

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 an 18-parameter tool with nested objects, the description is largely complete about what it does and when it applies, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The main residual gap is parameter-level guidance, which is not an agent-blocking omission here.

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 22% across 18 parameters, so the description shoulders more burden than usual. The enumerated screen topics loosely mirror the 'focus' enum and the first-vs-follow-up framing touches profileRef/readingMode, but the description never directly explains input syntax or the many optional parameters, so compensation is partial.

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 (a full Jyotisha consultation covering a named set of life domains) and explicitly positions itself as the primary entry point. It contrasts itself against the many specialist siblings, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('PRIMARY TOOL FOR EVERY NORMAL USER QUESTION AND FIRST READING') and when-not ('Use specialist tools only when this result requests additional inputs or the user asks for technical matrices'). The follow-up path is also hinted via the profileRef/first-vs-later framing.

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