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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the irreversible public exposure: the page shows the chart, an optional first name, birth date and place, and explicitly never the birth time or coordinates. That privacy contract is exactly the kind of context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) cannot convey.

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, zero waste. The capability and the returned link come first, then the privacy contract and the consent gate, so the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, the return value needs no elaboration, and the description still summarizes it as a keepable link. Privacy, consent, and published-vs-hidden fields are covered; missing only the language parameter's effect and whether a published page can be revoked or expires.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% (name, birth, language carry no descriptions), though the nested birth fields are documented in-schema. The description adds real meaning by clarifying that name is optional and published, and that time and coordinates are inputs but not displayed; it says nothing about the language parameter or how partial coordinate input is handled.

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 chain (calculate a Lahiri sidereal natal chart) and a concrete output (a public Vedara page plus a shareable link), which cleanly separates it from compute_chart and get_my_chart. An agent can tell this is the only tool that produces a publicly viewable artifact.

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?

"Use only after the user explicitly asks for a sharable link and agrees the chart will be publicly viewable" is a clear gating precondition, including a consent requirement. It stops short of naming the non-sharing sibling (compute_chart) as the fallback when the user has not consented.

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