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

Beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses a notable behavioral trait: when source texts disagree, the response says so rather than silently choosing a side. It also labels the endpoint 'pure reference,' reinforcing that no side effects or calculations occur.

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?

Three dense sentences: the first defines data content, the second frames the use case and safety posture, and the third communicates a data-quality caveat. No filler or redundancy; the important scope is 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?

The description is complete for a read-only reference list: it names the payload fields, explains the use cases, warns about contradictions, and leaves parameter details to the fully described schema. No output schema exists, but the stated row fields give an agent enough to interpret the result.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds nothing about lang, limit, offset, or compact, but it does not need to because the schema already documents them adequately.

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 title and description state a specific action and resource: list all 45 devatas in the Vastu Purusha Mandala. It enumerates the exact fields in each row (grid squares, ring, side, pada count, source verses), and 'pure reference endpoint with no plot required' plus the list scope separates it from single-resource getters and plot/post siblings.

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 description gives explicit use cases ('for building a mandala diagram or a glossary') and characterizes the endpoint as a pure reference, implying it should be chosen for lookups rather than plot generation. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as post_vastu_plot or get_vastu_devatas_id, so the exclusion is clear but not exhaustive.

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