Life-area timing: career

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: how windows are cut (every Vimshottari period change at the chosen level, plus every Jupiter/Saturn sign change), that each window carries a score with dasha/transit/kp components, rule provenance via basis and a source key into sources, and the minScore filter behavior. It stops short of 5 because the text is truncated mid-sentence ("Double transit (K.N.") and omits cost/latency information.

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?

Front-loaded with the astrological basis, which is appropriate, but the second half is a dense run-on of jargon (components, basis, source key, Vimshottari levels) with no sentence breaks and it terminates mid-clause. Every element is substantive, yet the packing makes it harder to parse than it needs to be.

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-value explanation is optional and the description's coverage of score/components/basis/source is a bonus rather than a necessity. For a single nested-parameter, computationally heavy tool the description gives enough to call it correctly, with the only real gaps being the truncated final sentence and absent mention of the 50-credit cost surfaced only in context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by explaining what level actually controls (finest dasha level at which windows are cut) and that independent transit boundaries (Jupiter/Saturn sign changes) also fragment windows — semantics the schema's one-line enum note does not convey. The years/fromDate/minScore defaults restated here duplicate the schema, and the truncated tail may have held further parameter detail.

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-object-scope: career windows (job change, promotion) derived from the 10th house, its lord, Sun/Saturn karakas with 6th/11th/2nd support, plus the KP house group. This cleanly separates it from sibling life-area tools such as astroway_vedic_timing_marriage or astroway_vedic_timing_all without needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the life-area focus and the parameter defaults, but the description never says when to choose this over astroway_vedic_timing_all or astroway_reports_career, nor any prerequisite (e.g. birth time required for houses is only in the schema, not the description). No exclusions or alternate-route guidance is offered.

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