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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuine interpretive context by labeling Sade Sati and Dhaiya as structural periods rather than guaranteed outcomes, which shapes how the agent should present results, but it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or error/edge 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?

Two tight sentences with the output composition front-loaded and the interpretive caveat following it; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With 11 parameters, seven of them required, and zero schema descriptions, the absence of any parameter guidance is a serious gap; notably the birth-data-vs-queryDate relationship is unexplained. The output schema excuses the description from detailing return values, but the input side is inadequately covered.

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 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not. It never clarifies the crucial distinction between 'date'/'time'/'place' (birth data) and 'queryDate', nor explains latitude/longitude/timezoneOffset or the en/te language enum, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names alone.

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?

Uses a specific verb-plus-resource construction: it returns active Vimshottari periods alongside Saturn/Jupiter/node transit houses measured from natal Moon and Lagna, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name a sibling, but the combined dasha+transit scope for a single date implicitly distinguishes it from single-purpose tools like query_vimshottari_date or calculate_gochara.

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 'For one date' hints at the intended scope, but there is no statement of when to pick this tool over siblings such as fuse_timing, build_slow_transit_calendar, or analyze_transit_activation, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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