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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds real context beyond that: the returned sections, the opt-in include blocks, and a consent requirement before transmitting birth data. It omits any statement about resolution/ambiguity of place results or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

The purpose, inputs and output sections are front-loaded and nearly every clause adds actionable information. It is dense as a single block and repeats the 'never guess coordinates' rule twice (also in schema), a minor redundancy.

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 nested-parameter, open-world computation tool with an output schema, this covers what to supply, what is returned, opt-in sections, and the consent constraint. Only the language parameter and any behavior on place-resolution failure inside this tool (as opposed to the retry warning) go unaddressed.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: it explains the place-vs-coordinates choice, the never-guess rule for lat/long, and the meaning of each include enum value (D9 Navamsa, D10 Dasamsa, Raja/Dhana yogas, Shadbala in rupas). The language and timezone parameters are not addressed in the description, leaving a gap.

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 (calculate) and resource (Lahiri sidereal natal chart) and disambiguates with synonyms (Kundli, Kundali, Janam Kundali) plus the three required inputs. It is clearly distinguishable from profile-based siblings like get_my_chart because it computes from supplied birth details.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: only after the user agrees to share birth details, prefer city/region/country, and clarify an unresolved place before retrying in another tool. It does not name get_my_chart as the alternative for saved-profile users, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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