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 covered. The description adds that the operation samples an interval and detects boundary changes for specific divisions, but says nothing about sampling density, determinism of the sample set, or output size. Adequate but thin beyond the annotations.

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 action and outputs, followed by a high-value disambiguation. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a 10-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most inputs unexplained, so it is only minimally complete.

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 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'declared birth-time interval' loosely maps to birthTimeAccuracyMinutes; the required date, time, place, latitude, longitude and timezoneOffset parameters, plus the language enum, get no explanation.

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 and resource ('Samples the declared birth-time interval') and names the exact outputs it produces (Lagna, Moon-pada, Navamsa-Lagna boundary changes). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rectify_birth_time ('This is not rectification'), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 'This is not rectification' is an explicit exclusion that steers the agent away from rectify_birth_time, which is valuable routing guidance. However, it never states the positive when-to-use condition (e.g. to gauge chart sensitivity to an uncertain birth time) or any prerequisites, so one inference step remains.

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