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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the edge-type taxonomy (which is genuinely useful behavioral content about what edges are produced) but nothing about computation cost, required birth-data accuracy, or interpretation caveats.

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 well-structured sentence listing edge types with no filler. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is perhaps slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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-value explanation is not required. However, with an 8-parameter, 38%-covered birth-data schema and no annotations gap to excuse it, the description should address the coordinate-vs-place contract and timezone requirements. It covers the graph's content but not the invocation contract.

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 coverage is only 38%, so the description must compensate and does not. It says nothing about date/time, place vs. explicit coordinates, the anyOf coordinate requirement, the IANA timezone requirement when coordinates are given, or the optional timezoneOffset fallback. Five of eight parameters carry no description in either location.

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 clear verb (returns) and a precise resource: a 'typed planetary relationship graph' with enumerated edge types (dispositors, chains, conjunctions, exchanges, Graha Drishti, compound relationships, Lagna functional lordships). This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_house or analyze_yogas, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative the way a 5 would.

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 'when to use' guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as analyze_house or calculate_strength_profile. With ~85 siblings, the definition gives no routing help beyond the resource name itself.

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