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 covered. The description adds that boundaries are exact and the response is single-date scoped, which is modest extra context but no auth/rate/format detail beyond what structured fields provide.

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 return content, no filler. Every clause earns its place and the scope constraint follows immediately.

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 a 10-parameter tool with 7 required inputs and near-zero schema documentation, the description does not clarify how birth data and queryDate relate or what units/formats the coordinates and offset expect. The output schema covers return values, but the input-side gaps remain significant.

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 10% across 10 parameters (7 required), and the single schema-described param is queryDate. The description says 'one ISO date' but never explains the crucial distinction between birth data (date, time, place, latitude, longitude, timezoneOffset) and the queryDate, leaving most required parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ('Returns') and resource (active Mahadasha, Antardasha and Pratyantardasha with exact boundaries) scoped to a single ISO date. It distinguishes itself from a full-timeline tool by contrast, though it never names the sibling (e.g. calculate_dasha_system) 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?

'Optimized for AI clients that do not need the full 120-year timeline' implies when to prefer this over a full-timeline dasha tool, but the alternative is never named and there are no explicit when-not conditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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