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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotent, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses output scope ('with source locators and our own guidance; no book prose') and the non-chart-specific nature, telling the agent what it will and won't get back.

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 core list, no filler or restatement of the title. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but each item is informative, so it stays close to earning 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 values need not be described, and the description correctly signals content type. But with five zero-documented filter parameters and no guidance on their accepted values, an agent cannot reliably scope a query, leaving a meaningful gap for a browsing tool.

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% and the description never explains any of the five filters (graha, topic, family, tradition, limit). It hints that 'topics' and gemstone rows exist, which loosely maps to the topic parameter, but graha/family/tradition/limit remain semantically opaque and the agent has no basis to know what values are valid or how they interact.

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 (lists) and resource (structured remedy catalog) and enumerates the concrete topic families it contains (mantra, yantra, homa, dana, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from build_remedy_repertoire and clarifies the non-chart-specific scope, so an agent can tell it apart from the many analyze_* siblings.

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?

Gives clear routing context: 'Not chart-specific... chart gemstones come from build_remedy_repertoire,' which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice. It does not, however, distinguish itself from neighboring catalog/analysis tools like analyze_remedies or explore_lal_kitab_remedy_catalog, so the exclusion set is incomplete.

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