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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: output is factual, the governing rule is disclosed, remedies are out of scope, and it must not be read as a marriage verdict. It does not discuss accuracy caveats or edge cases like missing time.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the trigger and required inputs, the second covers output shape and scope limits. No filler, no restating the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results and does so (Mars placement plus the rule used). The gap is that it never addresses the optional time parameter's effect or what happens when time is omitted, which matters for an astrological calculation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents date, time and placeName with formats, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the inputs as 'birth date, time and city' but adds no format or fallback guidance, and it implies time is always supplied even though the schema only requires date and placeName.

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 names a specific resource (mangal dosha / Mars placement) and states exactly what the tool emits: the Mars placement factually plus the rule applied, with no remedies. It implicitly separates itself from naksha_compatibility by declaring it is 'not a verdict about a marriage', though it does not name that sibling 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?

It gives concrete trigger phrases ('am I manglik', manglik status for marriage matching) and the precondition (birth date, time and city). It also states an explicit exclusion: 'Do not use without birth details or as a verdict about a marriage.' Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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