Prashna: yes/no indicators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the equal-weight tally, the named classical success/timing rules, the refusal of health, and the explicit 'No prediction text' output character. It does not cover cost or failure behavior in the description body (cost appears only in the context block), so this is good but not exceptional disclosure.

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 opening clause front-loads purpose and the enumerations are dense but domain-necessary; the three closing sentences (output shape, tally/grade/timing, no prediction) each add distinct information. The long Ithasala/Easarapha/Kamboola list is heavy but is the actual return contract, not 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?

With 12 parameters, 5 required, an output schema present, and a credit cost, the definition supplies enough: the question moment fields are named in the context block, categories are bounded, and the output structure is described even though the output schema already documents it. The only meaningful gap is the missing routing versus the prashna_chart and prashna_number siblings.

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 75%, above the threshold where the schema carries the burden; parameters such as number, ayanamsa, timezone and the arudhaSign/number exclusivity are already fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces `category` by tying it to 'the house of the question and its lord' and excluding health, which is largely a restatement of the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource — Prasna Tantra indicators for one category — and enumerates the exact contents (house of the question and its lord, Lagna lord, Moon, Tajika aspects, Ithasala/Easarapha/Kamboola, category stanzas) plus the closing tally, II.5-8 grade and II.10-12 timing. It also draws a scope boundary with 'No prediction text.' It stops short of naming the sibling it is not (prashna_chart, prashna_number), so an agent must infer the split from names alone.

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?

There is one real usage constraint: 'health is refused' and health is absent from the category enum, which tells the agent what not to ask for. However, the description never states when to pick this over astroway_vedic_prashna_chart or astroway_vedic_prashna_number, nor any prerequisite about supplying the question moment. Usage is implied by the category list rather than explained.

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