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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: no exposure of stored birth details or internal identifiers, no public geocoding/web search/external recipients/public publishing, and private auth/audit/rate-limit operations. However, the claim about 'explicitly supplied coordinates' is not supported by the input schema and may mislead about available inputs.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and then lists optional include sections, so it is generally well structured. It is somewhat long and includes a potentially inaccurate coordinate clause, but the length is mostly justified by privacy and account-boundary constraints.

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 fully explained, and the description still covers the major chart sections and optional includes. The main gaps are the unexplained language parameter and the unsupported 'explicitly supplied coordinates' phrase.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the include values well — divisional_charts (D9/D10), yogas, and planet_strength — but it says nothing about the language parameter, leaving one of two params undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: return the connected user's saved sidereal birth chart (Kundli). It also scopes the operation with privacy constraints and optional sections, which distinguishes it from siblings like compute_chart and share_chart.

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?

It gives clear prerequisites: a connected Vedara account with a completed birth profile, and it operates only within the user's bounded private account. It does not explicitly name when to use this versus compute_chart or other siblings, so it falls short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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