Register Dasha-Change Webhook

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive profile, so the description's bar is lower. It does add genuine context beyond the annotations -- the 10-credit cost, the REST endpoint, and the specific delivery trigger -- but says nothing about authentication, retry/delivery guarantees, or whether duplicate registrations create duplicate subscriptions.

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 trigger event is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining lines are compact bracketed metadata with no filler. The tag style is terse but every element (group, endpoint, required param, cost) carries information.

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, return-value explanation is not needed, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a state-mutating registration tool on a shared endpoint set, the description omits auth requirements, how to manage or remove the webhook afterward, and duplicate-registration behavior -- gaps the agent would need when calling it correctly.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates '[Required: url]' without explaining that this is the callback endpoint where dasha-transition payloads will be POSTed, nor any constraints (HTTPS, reachability, max length from the schema).

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 the exact event covered (Vedic Vimshottari dasha period transitions), which distinguishes it from the many other webhook siblings like mahadasha_end, retrograde_start, or sign_ingress. The action verb is weaker -- 'Fires on' describes the trigger event rather than the fact that this registers a subscription -- but the title and '[Required: url]' make the registration semantics recoverable.

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?

The event scope implicitly tells an agent when this is the right webhook (when dasha period changes should be notified), but there is no explicit routing guidance versus the other ~12 webhook tools, no prerequisites, and no note about whether astroway_webhooks_subscribe is a broader alternative.

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