Asterwise

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Description adds behavior beyond annotations: digit-stripping mechanics (formatting noise ignored, country code included), the combination with name/birth date, and the output nature (harmonic scoring + interpretive copy). This contextualizes the operation beyond simple read/idempotent.

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 primary behavior in one sentence, followed by efficiently formatted workflow, input contract, and disambiguation sections. Zero filler; every sentence carries a distinct piece of guidance.

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?

Given the output schema exists (meaning return values needn't be spelled out), the description covers the workflow order, disambiguation from siblings, input contract, and references a full docs URL for the complete contract. Nothing essential is missing for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds that the mobile number's country code digits are included in reduction and that formatting noise is ignored, which enriches the mobile_number parameter, but the name and date parameters are not further elaborated beyond schema. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 specific verb ('Digit-strips', 'reduces'), resource ('mobile string'), and unique scope ('country code digits', harmonic scoring + interpretive copy). Clearly distinguishes from vehicle number and business name analysis with explicit DO NOT CONFUSE WITH.

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?

Provides explicit WHEN to use: BEFORE asterwise_get_numerology_profile, AFTER none. Names alternatives and the distinction (vehicle plate rules, letter Expression scan). Agent can select correctly without ambiguity.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the API pins to the current day, there is no explicit query date, and the output includes intensity, upcoming cycles, and historical rows. It also references the full output/error contract via link.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE sections. Each section earns its place, and the external documentation link avoids bloating the description with full contract details.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It states the computation, the date behavior, the output contents, the recommended workflow, sibling distinctions, and points to the full contract. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some input-contract context ('No explicit query date — API pins to current day' and 'BirthData global contract applies'), but it does not meaningfully elaborate on the individual birth or response_format parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluates Saturn's seven-and-a-half-year Moon-sign cycle phases against natal data for the current day and returns intensity, upcoming cycles, and historical rows.' It clearly distinguishes itself from asterwise_get_gochar and asterwise_get_transits in the DO NOT CONFUSE section, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 WORKFLOW section explicitly recommends a before-tool (asterwise_get_natal_chart) and an after-tool (asterwise_get_gochar), while the DO NOT CONFUSE section names two alternatives and explains why they differ. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: letters and separators are ignored, only numeric digits are used, and owner name and birth date are combined in the reduction. The explicit input contract and link to the full output/error contract further disclose behavior.

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 description is well-structured with labeled sections like WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH, and the core operation is front-loaded. There is minor redundancy between the first sentence and the INPUT CONTRACT about ignoring letters and separators, but no significant wasted content.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the processing rules, workflow context, sibling exclusions, and a link to the full output/error contract. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without needing additional inference.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, and the description adds value by clarifying vehicle_number processing: non-digits are stripped and only numeric digits participate in the reduction. It does not materially expand on the name or date parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: strips non-digits from a vehicle registration token, reduces the numeric run with owner name and birth date, and returns the same harmony schema as mobile analysis. The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section explicitly separates it from mobile number and business name analysis tools.

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 DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names exact alternatives and their distinguishing conditions, such as phone digit rules including country codes for asterwise_check_mobile_number. The WORKFLOW block adds a recommended preceding tool, giving clear workflow context for when this tool fits.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds significant context beyond annotations: cryptographic randomness via Python secrets.SystemRandom, per-call independence with no session state, local rejection of out-of-range counts with MCP INVALID_PARAMS, and a 50% per-card reversal chance that is explicitly 'not seeded.'

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 description is front-loaded with the core behavior in the first sentence, then organized into labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) that make it scannable. There is no filler; examples, validation notes, and the docs link all earn their place, and the length is proportionate to the three near-sibling tools it must disambiguate.

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?

Between the annotations (safe read operation), the output schema, and the docs link for the full output/error contract, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing. The reminder to interpret drawn cards via active_meaning and active_keywords fields also closes the loop on how results should be consumed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters; the description adds strong value with concrete examples (1 daily pull, 3 simple reading, 10 Celtic Cross, 78 full deck), the 1–78 boundary with local validation behavior, and probability mechanics for allow_reversed (50% per card, independent, not seeded). Minor gap: response_format is absent from the INPUT CONTRACT section, though its schema description is thorough.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Draws N unique random cards from the 78-card deck' — and adds scope-defining traits (unique, cryptographic randomness, no session state). The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' block names the three closest tarot siblings and their distinguishing behavior, so an agent can select this tool without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is standalone with no prerequisites or follow-up ('BEFORE: None', 'AFTER: None'). The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section names asterwise_get_tarot_card_of_the_day, asterwise_get_tarot_three_card_spread, and asterwise_get_tarot_celtic_cross with the precise differences (deterministic vs positional vs random), leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

The description includes 'WORKFLOW: BEFORE: None — standalone. AFTER: None.' which clarifies no side effects, complementing the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It also states the output format parameter, so the agent knows it produces markdown or JSON.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, supported, workflow, input contract, disambiguation) and each section serves a necessary role. It is detailed but not redundant, and the formatting makes it easy to parse.

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?

Given the large number of sibling tools, the description provides complete context: purpose, supported inputs, disambiguation from relevant alternatives, workflow, input contract, and a link to full output/error docs. It also indicates the output options via the response_format parameter.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema: 'number' as the angel number sequence with examples, and 'response_format' with enum and default. The description's 'INPUT CONTRACT' section reinforces the meaning with examples, going beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lookup the meaning of a specific angel number by its sequence.' It also specifies supported sequences and explicitly names sibling tools to avoid confusion (asterwise_get_angel_number_today, asterwise_get_angel_number_personal, asterwise_get_number_meaning).

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 explicitly provides usage guidance through the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, listing specific alternatives and explaining the difference (e.g., today's daily number, personal number from birth date, Pythagorean numerology). This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds concrete behavioral detail: the LP-to-sequence mapping rules, master number handling, and scope ('extracts only the Life Path → angel sequence mapping'), plus a docs link for the full output/error contract. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a clear first sentence, then organized into labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE, docs link). Each section earns its place; no 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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers purpose, mapping, workflow, param semantics, exclusions, and points to a full contract. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds an explicit example ('1994-03-31'), marks name as optional, and clarifies that date means 'birth date' (not today's date), which disambiguates from the sibling tool. That extra practical context justifies a 4.

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 operation — 'Computes a personal angel number from a birth date using the Pythagorean Life Path as the base' — and gives the exact mapping logic. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly separates it from asterwise_get_angel_number_today and asterwise_get_numerology_profile.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: recommends calling asterwise_get_numerology_profile first to confirm Life Path, and lists two confusable siblings with conditions (daily vs birth date; full profile vs only Life Path mapping). This leaves no ambiguity about alternative selection.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable context by explaining the computational method (date digits summed and reduced to a single digit, then tripled) and offering a link to the full output/error contract, which covers any missing edge-case details.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is slightly lengthy due to the distinctions and workflow notes, but every sentence serves a purpose, and the included docs link consolidates additional details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no required params, read-only), the description is complete: it explains what it does, how it computed, when to use it vs. alternatives, and provides a docs link for errors/output. It doesn't explicitly mention response formats, but the schema already covers that, and the workflow note clarifies its standalone nature.

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?

The schema description covers the single optional parameter (response_format) with enum and default, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds context that no required parameters exist and that the date is automatically derived, but this relates to operational behavior rather than enhancing parameter understanding beyond 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 clearly states that the tool returns today's angel number computed from the current date, with a specific algorithm (sum and reduce digits). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools via the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, naming asterwise_get_angel_number and asterwise_get_angel_number_personal and their purposes.

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 guidance is explicit: the 'WORKFLOW' section states it is standalone and suggests when to use the personal angel number tool afterward. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section clarifies when to use alternative tools (specific number lookup vs. personalized from birth date), leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by stating the exact computed outputs, clarifying that raw matrices are exposed here rather than applied to transits, and linking to the full output/error contract. Minor operational details like rate limits or auth are absent but not critical for a read-only compute tool.

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 description is well-structured with labeled sections—WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH—and the core function is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is longer than minimal, but the length is justified by the complexity of the tool and the need to disambiguate among a large sibling list.

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?

For a complex Vedic tool with a nested birth object and an output schema, the description provides the essential workflow, input restriction, sibling disambiguation, and a link to the full contract. Return-value details are not duplicated because an output schema exists, so nothing necessary for correct selection and invocation is missing.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for date, lat, lon, time, ayanamsa, timezone, person_name, and response_format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the high-level contract 'BirthData only,' which is useful but does not deepen per-parameter semantics beyond 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?

Description opens with a precise verb phrase—'Computes full Ashtakavarga bindu matrices, trikona and ekadhipatya reductions, and sarva totals'—clearly identifying both the resource and the computation. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' sections explicitly distinguish it from asterwise_get_chart_strength and asterwise_get_gochar, so an agent can disambiguate without opening the 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?

The WORKFLOW section names a recommended predecessor (asterwise_get_natal_chart), a natural successor (asterwise_get_gochar), and why the successor uses this tool's output. It also identifies the tools most likely to be confused with this one and explains the selection difference, making when-to-use unambiguous.

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

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

The description discloses key behavioral details: the output location (data.periods.root[]), date formatting (DD/MM/YYYY), depth semantics, and local validation of levels. It also links to the full output and error contract. The readOnly and idempotent annotations align with the described compute-and-return behavior, with no contradiction.

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 description is well-organized into workflow, input contract, and disambiguation sections, making it easy to parse. It is slightly repetitive (e.g., mentioning data.periods.root and DD/MM/YYYY twice), but the structure and clarity justify the length.

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?

Given the presence of nested objects and an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies input constraints, output shape, date formats, related tools, and a link to the full contract. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and understand expected results.

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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all parameters, including defaults, formats, and allowed values. The description adds useful context about level validation and the relationship to sibling tools, though it does not dramatically expand on the schema's already high coverage.

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 precisely states that the tool computes the 108-year Ashtottari Dasha tree with configurable depth and returns periods under data.periods.root. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from asterwise_get_dasha (Vimshottari) and asterwise_get_yogini_dasha, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 provides clear workflow guidance, recommending asterwise_get_natal_chart before use and asterwise_get_dasha for optional Vimshottari comparison. It also includes explicit 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' notes, which effectively tells an agent when to use this tool versus closely related siblings.

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

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

Annotations already provide strong safety cues: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it is a standalone reference with no BEFORE/AFTER workflow dependencies, and it defaults the date to today. It also links to the full output and error contract, which covers any remaining behavioral details.

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 description is well structured and front-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first sentence, followed by compact WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and confusion-avoidance sections. Every section earns its place and the whole thing is easy for an agent to scan.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers date format, default behavior, supported systems, sibling alternatives, and points to the full output/error contract.

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 input schema already documents both date and response_format fully. The description reiterates the date default but does not add meaningfully beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics burden.

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 a specific verb with a resource: 'Returns ayanamsha values for all four supported systems (Lahiri, Raman, KP, Tropical) for a given date.' It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, and it even names the two most likely confusable alternatives and what they do differently.

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 explicitly provides a 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, naming asterwise_get_natal_chart and asterwise_get_westen_natal and explaining when each should be used instead. This gives concrete routing guidance beyond simply defining the tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description does not add extra context about side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but it is consistent with the annotations.

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 description is well-organized with clear sections (purpose, workflow, input contract, do-not-confuse) and is free of unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Includes algorithm, worked examples, output format options, and differentiation from related tools. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly without further clarification.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with types, defaults, and enums. The description adds the algorithm and concrete examples, providing rich semantic detail beyond 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 clearly states it calculates the Balance number from first letters of name parts, with explicit examples. It distinguishes itself from expression number and karmic lessons, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 includes a 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section that explicitly names sibling tools and clarifies when not to use them. It also covers output format options, giving clear usage direction.

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

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating it is 'standalone' and has a specific workflow after it, which is not covered by the readOnly or idempotent hints. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects or permissions, though the annotations already cover these (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false). Overall, it adds moderate context without contradicting the annotations.

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 description is structured into clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and is not overly long. However, the INPUT CONTRACT section repeats information already present in the schema, introducing slight redundancy. The front-loaded first sentence is effective, and the overall structure is easy to follow.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 enum, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, usage, and differentiators. It points to a URL for the full output and error contract, which addresses potential omissions. It does not describe the output structure in detail, but the link compensates. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the range constraint for 'days' (1-90) and clarifies the default behavior for 'target_date' ('Defaults to today'), which is not fully specified in the schema. This additional context improves understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states that the tool computes physical, emotional, and intellectual biorhythm cycles for a birth date. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from related tools via the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, naming asterwise_get_nakshatra_prediction and asterwise_get_panchanga. This provides both a specific verb and resource, and clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: 'BEFORE: None' and 'AFTER: asterwise_get_nakshatra_prediction', indicating where this tool fits in a sequence. It also tells the agent when not to use this tool (i.e., for Vedic daily predictions or panchanga elements), making the selection criteria very clear.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value comes from the INPUT CONTRACT: 'Special characters and digits are acceptable; reduction strips non-letters per upstream rules. No local validation on name or date.' This discloses important behavioral expectations beyond the structured annotations, and a link to the full output/error contract is provided.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest is organized into scannable labeled sections: WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH, and a documentation link. Every section earns its place without redundant elaboration.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description supplies all necessary context: standalone workflow, input constraints, no local validation, disambiguation from similar tools, and a link to the full output/error contract. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds extra semantic value by explaining that special characters and digits are acceptable and that non-letters are stripped during reduction. It also clarifies there is no local validation on name or date, which supplements the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reduces a business name to Expression and root digits against a founder birth date and returns thematic suitability lists plus a harmony score.' It clearly states what the tool computes and distinguishes it from siblings by naming asterwise_get_name_correction and asterwise_check_mobile_number as different analyses.

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 WORKFLOW section explicitly says 'BEFORE: None — standalone' and gives an AFTER condition: use asterwise_get_name_correction if the entity is a person, not a brand. The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH block names two alternatives and explains exactly why they are different, so an agent receives concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds useful behavioral detail about returning name, birth, and combined compound analyses, and the 'no local validation' note clarifies input handling.

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 description is organized with clear sections for workflow, input contract, and exclusions. It is somewhat verbose but each section serves a distinct purpose and there is little redundant 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 an output schema present, the description does not need to exhaustively list return fields. It summarizes the return content and provides a link to the full output and error contract, which is sufficient for 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% and the description adds extra context about inputs being forwarded as-is with no local validation. The roles of name, date, and response_format are fully explained in the schema, and the description reinforces them.

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 clearly states the tool reduces a name and birth date using the Chaldean letter-value system and returns compound analyses. It also distinguishes itself from similar tools like asterwise_get_numerology_profile and asterwise_get_lo_shu_grid.

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 provides workflow context and explicitly warns not to confuse this tool with Pythagorean-based numerology or Lo Shu grid tools. It lacks an explicit 'use this when' statement, but the workflow and exclusions offer strong practical guidance.

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

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds useful context about output format and date formatting but does not disclose additional behavioral side effects or limitations beyond the annotations.

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 description is well-structured with sections for workflow, input contract, and disambiguation. However, the date format distinction is repeated in both the 'INPUT CONTRACT' and 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' sections, adding slight redundancy.

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 summarizes the output content, mentions the output format options, provides workflow context, and references the full output and error contract URL. Combined with the detailed schema, an agent has sufficient information to call this tool 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?

The schema covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, so the description adds little beyond what is already in the input schema. The note about data.periods[] using YYYY-MM-DD is output-related rather than an input parameter clarification.

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 explicitly states the tool computes Char Dasha and returns sign lords as period rulers with ISO-dated Maha and Antar sequences plus karaka mappings. It also distinguishes itself from Vimshottari and Yogini dasha tools, so an agent can clearly identify when to choose this tool.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: natal chart is recommended before, and Vimshottari dasha is noted as an optional cross-check after. It also clarifies the date format difference versus asterwise_get_dasha and warns against confusing it with the Vimshottari and Yogini tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the baseline is low. The description adds context about the workflow (recommended order) and clarifies that it reads 'from BirthData', which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects or lack thereof beyond the annotations, so a small gap remains.

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?

Despite being long, the description is highly structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and front-loads the purpose. No wasted words; each sentence carries distinct value, and the flow guides the reader efficiently.

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 self-contained and thorough: it states what the tool returns, how it fits in a larger workflow, differentiates it from similar tools, and even points to a full documentation URL. Given the complexity (multiple bala types, vargas, karaka maps), this is more than sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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% – every parameter and subfield is described. The description goes beyond the schema, e.g., explaining that omitting time uses a sunrise chart and not to pass '00:00' for unknown, and giving default Ayanamsa as 'lahiri' with a recommendation. This adds practical meaning that helps invoke the tool correctly.

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 explicitly states what the tool does: 'Aggregates Shadbala, Bhavbala, Vimshopaka...' and is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like asterwise_get_yogas and asterwise_get_ashtakavarga. The verb 'Aggregates' plus the specific resource (BirthData) and the list of outputs make the purpose unambiguous.

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 workflow section gives explicit before/after recommendations: 'BEFORE: RECOMMENDED — asterwise_get_natal_chart' and 'AFTER: asterwise_get_yogas — optional'. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly names alternatives and what they are, so when-to-use and when-not-to-use are crystal clear.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing the core safety profile. The description adds no side-effect information but does describe the output (quality, ruler, local clock bounds) and the input basis (sunrise/sunset at a location), which gives some behavioral context beyond the annotations. Since annotations cover the main safety aspects and the description adds modest context, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 main description is a single, dense sentence that conveys the core function without fluff. The additional sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) are each short and purposeful, adding necessary guidance without redundancy. The structure is well-organized and every sentence contributes value.

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 covers the tool's purpose, input constraints (via INPUT CONTRACT and schema), output expectations (quality, ruler, clock bounds), workflow (before/after), and alternatives to avoid. It also provides a link to the full output/error contract. For a tool with a nested location parameter, this is comprehensive and leaves little ambiguity for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with all fields having descriptions (e.g., lat/lon ranges, date pattern, timezone default, response_format enum). The description text adds context by explaining that the location is used for 'sunrise/sunset' and that output includes 'local clock bounds,' which clarifies the role of timezone and lat/lon. The INPUT CONTRACT section also states that LocationInput enforces date format and lat/lon ranges, reinforcing schema details. This extra context justifies a 4 rather than the baseline 3.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Splits a solar day into sixteen Choghadiya segments from sunrise/sunset at a location and labels each slot's quality, ruler, and local clock bounds.' It clearly identifies the resource (solar day segments) and the action (splits and labels). The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly differentiates it from asterwise_get_hora and asterwise_get_muhurta, making it distinct among the many sibling tools.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: 'BEFORE: None — this tool is standalone. AFTER: asterwise_get_rahu_kaal — optional inauspicious band overlay for the same date.' It also includes 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' warnings that clarify when not to use this tool compared to related ones (hora, muhurta). This gives the agent clear conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by stating it 'scores' and 'returns' data, implying no mutation. It also notes 'All scoring is computed upstream from those payloads,' clarifying the input handling. No contradiction with annotations, and the description adds modest behavioral context.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections for workflow and exclusions, and the main purpose is stated in one sentence. It includes a link to the full contract and helpful context without excessive verbosity. The extra sections add value and are not redundant, so it earns a 4.

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 provides sufficient context for a complex astrological tool: it mentions the expected output (koota breakdown, dosha flags, etc.), gives workflow recommendations, names sibling tools to avoid confusion, and links to the full output/error contract. While the output schema is not inline, the link covers it, and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (person1, person2, response_format) fully described. The description adds minimal parameter-specific info, only mentioning 'Two BirthData objects follow the global contract' and 'unknown midnight time accepted without flag,' which slightly supplements the schema. Since the schema already covers semantics thoroughly, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: scoring North Indian Ashtakoota (36-point Guna Milan) for two charts and returning a breakdown, dosha flags, classical vetoes, mangal cross-check, and narrative guidance. It distinguishes from similar tools via the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section naming dashakoot and porutham, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool: before interpreting scores, a natal chart is recommended; after, papasamyam is an optional overlay. It also explicitly names alternatives (dashakoot, porutham) and explains why they are different, giving clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those: case-insensitive matching, the scope of returned data (dual Vedic/Western assignments, healing properties, safety cautions), and a link to the output/error contract.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH). It is slightly verbose, and the WORKFLOW line contains a minor contradiction ('None' followed by an alternative usage), but every section earns its place given the large sibling list.

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?

For a simple single-record lookup with two parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers all essential context: purpose, input contract, workflow placement, disambiguation from three closely related tools, and a reference to the full output/error contract. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters. The description adds a small but useful behavioral nuance — case-insensitive matching — and reinforces the input contract with concrete examples, though most of that is already present in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lookup a specific crystal by slug or name', and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming what it is not (full catalogue, by-planet lookup, gemstone recommendations). An agent can tell this tool apart from its closest siblings without opening their schemas.

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 WORKFLOW section states prerequisites and successors (BEFORE: None — standalone or after asterwise_get_gemstone_recommendations; AFTER: None), and the DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section explicitly names three alternatives with the conditions that select them. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description ('Returns') is consistent. No contradiction exists. The description adds context about filtering and sorting, which is harmless and does not mislead about side effects.

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 description uses clear section headers (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and every sentence provides distinct, necessary information (scope, sorting, exclusions, related tools). No fluff or repetition.

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?

Though an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description fully covers what the tool does, its filtering, and its relationship to other tools. This is enough for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds extra value by listing all valid planet values in the INPUT CONTRACT (Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Rahu, Ketu), which is more precise than the schema's example 'Venus' or 'Saturn'.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all crystals associated with a specific Vedic planet.' It further distinguishes itself by clarifying the sorting (Navaratna first, Uparatna substitutes) and exclusions (no Vedic correspondence), which clearly separates it from sibling crystal tools.

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?

Explicit workflow is provided: BEFORE (use natal chart to identify planet) and AFTER (use gemstone recommendations for prescription). The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names alternatives and explains when each should be used (e.g., gemstone recommendations for actual prescription, not just listing), giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds behavioral context by stating the sorting logic and offering a response_format parameter, which clarifies output behavior beyond the schema. The output/error contract link provides additional transparency, though no direct side-effect details are needed given the annotations.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (workflow, input contract, do-not-confuse, output contract). Though somewhat lengthy, every sentence contributes useful information—no fluff. The main recommendation statement is concise, and the additional sections are organized logically.

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?

Provides sufficient context for correct invocation: required filters, output format options, and a link to the full output/error contract. Although the actual output schema is not embedded, the description's mention of markdown/json and the contract URL mitigate the gap. It also clarifies relationships with sibling tools, making the tool's role well-defined.

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 baseline is 3. The description enhances this by listing allowed chakra values (Root, Sacral, Solar Plexus, etc.) which are not in the schema enum, and providing concrete examples for intention (protection, abundance, love) and zodiac_sign. It also clarifies the limit default/max, aligning with schema but adding context.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Recommends' and the resource 'crystals', with specific criteria (zodiac sign, chakra, intention). The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like asterwise_get_crystal_by_planet and asterwise_get_gemstone_recommendations, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states the requirement 'At least one filter is required' and describes the ordering behavior ('matches the most criteria first'). The workflow mentions 'AFTER: asterwise_get_crystal' for subsequent detail retrieval, and the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' lines provide clear when-to-use guidance against alternatives.

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

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful runtime behavior, such as the sunrise-chart fallback when time is omitted and the 'never pass 00:00' warning. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but the annotations cover the core behavioral traits.

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 description is well-structured with clear headings and each section serves a distinct purpose: purpose, workflow, input contract, and disambiguation. Despite being detailed, it avoids redundant prose and stays focused on actionable guidance.

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 provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use this tool, what inputs to provide, what defaults apply, and how it differs from closely related crystal and gemstone tools. It also includes a link to the full output/error contract and implies key output fields like match_score and match_reasons.

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?

All schema parameters are described, including nested birth fields like lat/lon with ranges, time with format and special unknown-value semantics, ayanamsa enum meanings, timezone default, and response_format. The description adds practical examples and clarifies edge cases.

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 a specific action: recommends crystals from a Vedic natal chart using house lordship rules. It also explicitly distinguishes this from zodiac/chakra-based matching, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear workflow with BEFORE/AFTER steps, input contract details, defaults, and a dedicated 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section that differentiates it from several sibling tools. It also links to the full output and error contract.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: sorted alphabetically, full content list, and a link to the error contract. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and front-loads the primary purpose. While slightly verbose, every section adds value and is well-organized.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description is fully complete. It explains the output contents, workflow, alternatives, and provides a documentation link for errors. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The only parameter response_format is fully documented in the schema with enum and description. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the parameter, but it doesn't need to since the schema covers it.

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 clearly states the tool returns all 50 crystals sorted alphabetically, with a detailed list of what each entry includes. It distinguishes itself from siblings via the DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section, naming asterwise_get_crystal, asterwise_get_crystal_by_planet, and asterwise_get_crystal_recommendations with their purposes.

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?

Explicit WORKFLOW section states no prerequisites and names the AFTER tool for filtering by Vedic planet. The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section explicitly lists alternative tools and their distinct purposes, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus others.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by linking to the full output and error contract and warning about lagna-sensitive timing when birth time is unknown. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 description is well-structured with WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE sections, making it easy to scan. Some redundancy exists with the schema's parameter descriptions, but the separation of concerns is helpful and not excessive given the large number of sibling dasha tools.

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 covers before/after workflows, sibling-tool disambiguation, output date format, level-depth payload implications, and a link to the full output/error contract. For a complex astrological tool, this provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially alongside the detailed schema.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is high. The description adds valuable output-format context ('Response dates in periods[] use DD/MM/YYYY, not ISO') and reiterates important time-related caveats, but much of the parameter-level meaning is already captured in 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 a specific verb ('Computes Vimshottari Dasha'), a clear resource ('from birth data'), and a concrete output ('returns hierarchical period trees plus current Maha/Antar interpretation blocks'). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools in the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the recommended before-tool (asterwise_get_natal_chart), the after-tool (asterwise_get_dasha_transits), and the alternative dasha tools with their key differences. This gives the agent clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail about the computed output — grid, score, percentage, dosha flags, diagnostics — and points to a full output/error contract URL, extending context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is front-loaded with the tool's core behavior, then organized into compact labeled sections for workflow, input contract, sibling differentiation, and documentation. Every section serves a distinct purpose and none is redundant with the schema.

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 tool has nested two-person input and a rich astrology computation, but the description covers workflow, input contract, sibling disambiguation, and full output/error documentation. Combined with complete schema descriptions and the output schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents person1, person2, response_format, including nested fields, defaults, and enums. The description's mention of 'Two BirthData objects per global contract' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Computes'), a precise resource ('ten-koota Dashakoot grid'), and the derived outputs ('ten-point score with percentage', 'boolean dosha flags', 'supplementary diagnostics'). It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools asterwise_get_compatibility and asterwise_get_porutham, so an agent can distinguish this tool from similar-sounding alternatives.

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 WORKFLOW section states a recommended prerequisite (asterwise_get_natal_chart for each native) and an optional follow-up (asterwise_get_papasamyam). The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names the two closest sibling tools and explains why they are not the same, which is exactly the when/not-when guidance needed.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds behavioral details: it performs today's transit correlation, returns scored correlations, and requires only birth data. No contradictions with annotations.

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 first sentence is a clear purpose statement and the uppercase sections help scannability, but the description is longer than necessary with some redundancy (AFTER vs DO NOT CONFUSE WITH and the final URL).

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 use: it covers output content, workflow, today's fixed date, alternatives, and points to the full output/error contract. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3; description adds meaningful context by clarifying that there is no date parameter and that birth data follows a global contract, while the schema already documents each field with examples and constraints. The wording around unknown birth time is slightly opaque, preventing a 5.

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: combines active Vimshottari lords with today's transits, returning scored correlations plus transit longitudes and houses. The title and sibling list make it distinct from asterwise_get_gochar, asterwise_get_transits, and asterwise_get_dasha.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: natal chart is recommended before, gochar is optional after, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH statements differentiate the three closest sibling tools. It also states that no date field is needed because 'today' is fixed by the API.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds detail about local enum enforcement (Pydantic) which is a mild behavioral note. No contradictions with the annotations are present, and the description does not introduce side effects or unexpected behavior.

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 description is organized into clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and avoids repetition. While it is somewhat verbose, the structure makes it easy to scan, and every sentence adds useful context. It is concise enough for an API description without being terse.

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 includes the full output/error contract URL, explains the optional chart_type and the default behavior of returing all 16 charts, and provides workflow context. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope, prerequisites, and output format without ambiguity.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including birth, chart_type, and response_format, each with detailed descriptions. The description itself adds little semantic value beyond restating the enum enforcement, so it does not elevate the baseline set by 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 clearly states the tool computes divisional (varga) chart positions from BirthData, and explicitly distinguishes it from the natal chart and chart strength tools. The verb 'Computes' and the resource 'divisional chart positions' are specific, and the distinction from sibling tools leaves no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 direct instructions: pass chart_type for one varga, omit for all sixteen. It also provides a WORKFLOW note recommending the natal chart as a prerequisite, and a 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly naming when not to use this tool versus the natal chart or chart strength. This covers both when to use and when to avoid.

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

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

The description adds behavioral details not covered by annotations, such as 'Unknown birth time at midnight is accepted silently,' and clarifies output types like 'presence flags, typed detail objects, optional summaries, and remedy lines.' These enrich the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already present.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH), each serving a distinct purpose. It is concise yet comprehensive, avoiding redundancy while covering essential operational aspects.

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 includes the input contract, workflow context, differentiation from siblings, and a link to the full output/error contract. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this provides sufficient context for correct usage without needing to restate every schema detail.

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?

While the schema already provides detailed descriptions for parameters, the description adds valuable semantics by noting that omitting birth time uses a sunrise chart and sets birth_time_provided=false, clarifying the behavior for the 'time' field. This goes beyond the schema's basic default description.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Scores twelve fixed dosha buckets from birth data and returns presence flags, typed detail objects, optional summaries, and remedy lines per dosha.' It also explicitly differentiates from similar tools like asterwise_get_chart_strength and asterwise_get_compatibility, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with 'WORKFLOW: BEFORE: RECOMMENDED — asterwise_get_natal_chart' and 'AFTER: asterwise_get_remedies.' It also includes a 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section that names alternatives and explains why they should not be chosen instead.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses case-insensitive lookup, standalone execution, and provides a link to the full output and error contract. These are behavioral details not covered by the annotations.

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 description is well-organized with clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH, full contract link). It is concise, uses short bullet-like sentences, and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 covers the return content (Jungian archetype, Vedic meaning, context variants, related symbols), the input format with examples, the output format options, and points to a full contract link. Combined with the schema and annotations, it gives the agent full context needed to invoke 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description's INPUT CONTRACT section only repeats the name parameter details already present in the schema (e.g., examples). No additional semantic meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states the action ('Lookup a specific dream symbol'), the target resource ('by slug or name (case-insensitive)'), and the output contents ('full dual-tradition interpretation...'). It also names the sibling tool it is not to be confused with, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' guidance to distinguish from asterwise_get_dream_symbols (full listing), and includes a WORKFLOW section indicating it is standalone with no prerequisites or follow-ups. This gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that filtering narrows results, that response_format changes output, and that there are no prerequisites. It also points to a full error contract, providing transparency about expected behavior.

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 description repeats information about category values and filtering in both the main paragraph and the INPUT CONTRACT section, making it somewhat redundant. While the structure is clear (purpose, workflow, input, confusion avoidance), the repetition detracts from conciseness.

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 provides sufficient context for a simple read-only list tool, including the distinction from the single-symbol tool and a link to the full output and error contract. It would be slightly more complete if it explicitly stated the return format (e.g., array of symbols), but the existing details are adequate.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including default values and allowed values for response_format, and the allowed categories for category. The tool description repeats this information without adding new meaning, so it does not improve parameter understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool returns dream symbols with dual-tradition interpretation and mentions the scope (500 symbols, 8 categories). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool asterwise_get_dream_symbol by saying 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH...' which clarifies the specific purpose of returning a list vs a single symbol.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance via the WORKFLOW and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH sections. It states that this tool is standalone, and that for a specific symbol detail, one should use asterwise_get_dream_symbol. It also explains the optional category filter and the response_format parameter, giving clear usage instructions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful beyond the annotations: it discloses the Goodwin/Balliett per-part method, explains why master numbers are preserved, and clarifies that name parts are reduced separately before summing. It also points to the output/error contract URL, adding behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema convey.

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?

Organized with clear labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and front-loads the core calculation method in the first sentence. Every section earns its place and the length is appropriate for a tool that needs to distinguish itself among many sibling numerology tools.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the calculation method, input requirements, workflow position, sibling distinctions, and error/out contract via a link. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value for the name parameter: full legal name as used at birth, space-separated parts, any case allowed, and a minimum one alphabaetic character constraint. It does not diacuss response_format, but the schema already fully documents that enum and default.

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 the specific operation: calculates the Expression/Destiny number from a full name using Pythagorean letter values, with concrete method details (per-part reduction, master number preservation). It also explicitly differentiates itself from sibling numerology tools, so an agent can immediately identify what this tool uniquely does.

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?

Provides an explicit WORKFLOW section stating it is standalone and names the natural after-step (soul_urge_number). Also has a dedicated DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section listing four sibling tools and the exact condition that makes them alternatives, which is ideal guidance for tool selection.

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

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) are present and consistent with the description. The description adds extra context about output format options (markdown vs json) and references a full contract URL, going slightly beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 description is well-structured with clear labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and is appropriately concise. The only minor redundancy is the repeated mention of the 20 festival count, but this does not detract from clarity.

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?

Given the rich schema (6 params, 100% coverage, enum, output schema) and annotations, the description provides sufficient additional context including the full documentation URL, usage alternatives, and output format behavior. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke and understand the tool.

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?

The input schema already has descriptions for all 6 parameters (year, latitude, location, timezone, longitude, response_format), making coverage 100%. The description reinforces the meaning of the location alternative and the response_format enum, adding value beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the verb ('Computes'), the resource (major Hindu festival dates), and the scope (for a given year and location). It explicitly lists example festivals (Makar Sankranti, Diwali, Holi, etc.) and names the sibling tools it should not be confused with, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool versus the alternatives: it directs users to asterwise_get_panchanga for full Panchanga detail on a specific festival date, and distinguishes itself from asterwise_get_panchanga_calendar and asterwise_get_muhurta. This provides clear usage direction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by specifying that the tool computes from the natal chart, returns a structured set of categories including contraindications and safety notes, and advises confirming the chart before wearing advice. It does not add details on auth or rate limits, but this is not central for a read-only computation tool.

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 main purpose sentence is front-loaded and is followed by compact, labelled sections for workflow, input contract, and exclusions. Each section adds decision-relevant value, and the docs link is a useful escape hatch rather than bloat.

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?

For a complex tool with an output schema, nested birth object, and safety annotations, the description covers the purpose, the output categories, the necessary workflow, and the alternatives to avoid. There is also a link to the full output and error contract, so an agent can resolve any remaining uncertainty. Nothing critical is missing.

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 fully documents birth and response_format. The description only adds 'BirthData follows the global contract', which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Computes'), names the exact resource ('Ratna-style gemstone picks and cautions from the natal chart'), and enumerates the outputs (primary stones, role-based stones, secondary options, contraindications, safety note). It clearly separates itself from sibling remedy tools in the DO NOT CONFUSE section, making tool selection unambiguous.

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 WORKFLOW section explicitly tells the agent to run asterwise_get_natal_chart BEFORE and asterwise_get_remedies AFTER, and the DO NOT CONFUSE section names alternatives and explains what they are not. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that Moon sign is computed from birth data, that no prior setup is needed, and that the result is a static lookup rather than a daily score. It also links to the full output and error contract.

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 description is organized into labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE) with the core purpose front-loaded. Each section adds distinct value, and the documentation link is compact. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a read-only lookup with a full input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers prerequisites, follow-up usage, sibling disambiguation, and points to the full output/error contract. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that the birth object is the sole input and that Moon sign is derived from it, which is not explicit in the schema. The INPUT CONTRACT also summarizes the relevant birth fields (date, time, lat, lon, timezone).

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 ('Returns'), a specific resource ('four Ghatak (inauspicious) timing parameters'), and the basis ('Janma Rasi (natal Moon sign)'). The DO NOT CONFUSE section explicitly separates it from asterwise_get_nakshatra_prediction and asterwise_get_panchanga, so an agent can distinguish it from 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 WORKFLOW section explicitly states no prerequisites ('BEFORE: None') and recommends a follow-up tool ('AFTER: asterwise_get_nakshatra_prediction') for daily auspiciousness. DO NOT CONFUSE names two alternatives and explains why they differ, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds practical behavioral notes such as defaulting target_date to today and handling of birth time '00:00' without unknown-time detection. However, it does not elaborate on rate limits or runtime characteristics, but the provided context is sufficient given the read-only annotation.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. While it is somewhat lengthy, each section serves a distinct purpose and the formatting aids readability, though it could be slightly more compact without losing essential disambiguation.

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 covers the tool's core functionality, provides workflow context, disambiguates from close sibling tools, and points to a full output/error contract for deeper details. Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested birth object, enums), the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though the output format could be slightly more detailed.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra clarity via the global contract note for birth data, specifically addressing the acceptance of '00:00' as a literal time, which supplements the schema's warning about not using it for unknown times. This added nuance justifies a score above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool computes Gochar against the natal Moon and Lagna, and enumerates specific outputs (per-planet transit longitudes, houses, AVK scores, vedha flags, roll-up summary). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools via the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance through WORKFLOW and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH sections, recommending natal chart as a prerequisite and dasha transits as a follow-up. It also specifies what this tool is not for (ingress/station tables, dasha-lord correlation), leaving no ambiguity about its appropriate use case.

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

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the key behavioral aspects. The description adds context about the output (tags each hour with ruler, quality, and 'current' status) and references a full output/error contract link. This goes slightly beyond the annotations, though it doesn't explicitly mention side effects or permissions (which are covered by the readOnlyHint).

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH, full contract link). It is concise yet comprehensive, using bullet-like separations to convey essential information without unnecessary verbosity, especially given the large number of sibling tools it must differentiate from.

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 tool has a relatively simple input structure (one nested location object) and an output schema is present. The description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and output, and it includes a link to the full output/error contract. Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers what an agent needs to invoke 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all properties, including date format, lat/lon ranges, timezone default, and response_format enum. The description only restates the location rules ('date/coordinate rules apply locally') without adding new semantic details beyond the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 clearly states the specific function: 'Builds the twenty-four planetary Horas between successive sunrises for a location and tags each hour with ruler, quality text, and whether it is current.' It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like asterwise_get_choghadiya and asterwise_get_natal_chart, ensuring no ambiguity.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states 'WORKFLOW: BEFORE: None — this tool is standalone' and 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' sections that clarify the differences from get_choghadiya and get_natal_chart, giving clear conditions for selection.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds that this is an AI-synthesised editorial horoscope, returns structured guidance fields plus model/period metadata, and that response_format only controls rendering between markdown and JSON. It also references a full output/error contract URL, providing meaningful behavior beyond the annotations.

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 description is longer than minimal, but every section earns its place: purpose, workflow, input contract, disambiguation, and documentation link. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose before supporting details, making it efficient despite its length.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on selection, input constraints, disambiguation, and the contract URL for full output/error details. It covers before/after workflow and alternatives, so an agent has everything necessary to invoke the tool correctly 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 the baseline is already strong, but the description adds genuine value by expanding moon_sign to include Sanskrit and English rashi names, clarifying that period is constrained to the schema enum, and specifying that response_format only selects rendering mode. This helps an agent understand valid inputs beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 clear, specific action: fetches an AI-synthesised Moon-sign horoscope for a chosen horizon, and distinguishes the resource and deliverable from sibling tools. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly contrasts it with asterwise_get_natal_chart and asterwise_get_gochar, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance via WORKFLOW and DO NOT CONFUSE sections, naming the exact sibling tools and their purposes. It also notes that a personalized chart should use asterwise_get_natal_chart, giving clear exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency about error handling by linking to a full output and error contract, and it explains the computation process (scanning letters, converting to values). No contradictions with annotations.

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 description is longer than average but well-structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH). The example inside INPUT CONTRACT repeats some information from the opening sentence, but the overall organization aids readability and avoids being unnecessarily verbose.

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?

Given that an output schema is reported as present (context signal), the description does not need to explain return values. It does point to a full output and error contract URL for additional details, and the workflow section places the tool in a broader context. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema descriptions cover both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The main description goes further by providing a concrete example ('Arjun Mehta') that illustrates how the name is processed, which adds practical semantic clarity beyond the schema text. The response_format enum is also clearly documented.

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 clearly states the tool's specific function: identifies karmic lessons by scanning all letter values in a full name and finding missing digits 1–9. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that balance number uses only first initials and expression number reduces to a single digit, preventing confusion.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context via the workflow section (standalone, before numerology profile) and a 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section that names specific alternatives and explains the exact differences (initials vs all letters, reduced vs absent digits). This gives clear guidance on selecting this tool over related options.

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

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

Annotations already flag readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds non-obvious caveats: ayanamsa choice is not enforced locally and mismatched settings still post upstream, and time='00:00' is accepted without warning. This goes beyond structured fields and warns about edge cases that could corrupt interpretation.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into short labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH). Every section adds distinct value and no sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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, rich input schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the remaining context: workflow position, sibling distinctions, input edge cases, and a link to the full output/error contract. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful parameter-level caveats beyond the schema, such as that time='00:00' is accepted without warning and ayanamsa mismatches are not locally validated; it also connects BirthData to the output without restating schema text.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: builds a KP natal chart with sub-lords on grahas and twelve cusps from BirthData. It also explicitly disambiguates from asterwise_get_natal_chart ('classical bundle without KP sub-lords') and asterwise_get_kp_ruling_planets ('live moment rulers, not natal cusps'), making the tool's identity clear.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: a DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names sibling tools and states the contrast, and the WORKFLOW section says this tool precedes asterwise_get_kp_significators for house-level significator chains. It also gives a BEFORE recommendation to cross-check birth records, which helps agents decide when results are trustworthy.

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

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

The description accurately reflects the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations and adds useful behavioral details such as returning a deduplicated list and being time-dependent on the server clock. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections, but the all-caps formatting and repetitive emphasis on 'no birth data' and 'no date parameter' add some redundancy. Overall it remains concise and scannable.

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 includes the key output fields, the input contract, the absence of a date parameter, and a follow-up workflow recommendation when natal confirmation is needed. It gives enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without requiring additional information.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for lat, lon, and response_format, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that only lat and lon are needed and explicitly states there is no date parameter, which adds useful semantic clarity beyond 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 clearly states the tool computes KP ruling planets for the current instant at a given lat/lon with no birth data, and lists the specific outputs (day lord, Moon/Ascendant lord chains, deduplicated ruling_planets list). It also explicitly distinguishes this from the KP chart and prashna chart tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says there is no birth data and that 'now' is implicit on the server clock, which is crucial for correct use. It also names when to use this tool versus alternatives (KP chart needs BirthData, prashna chart is for horary keywords) and provides a workflow hint to follow up with asterwise_get_kp_chart if natal confirmation is needed.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating behavior is known. The description adds that it computes and returns house tables plus planet-tier reverse indexes, providing useful context, but it does not describe output details or potential side effects beyond what the annotations convey.

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 description is direct and free of filler, combining the core purpose, workflow prerequisite, and disambiguation in a compact structure. Each sentence serves a distinct informative purpose, and the optional 'Full output and error contract' link is a reasonable addition rather than unnecessary bloat.

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?

Given the nested birth object and three parameters, the description plus full schema coverage provides all necessary operational context. It includes the recommended preceding workflow, clarifies sibling distinctions, summarizes the return content, and references the full output/error contract, making the tool self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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% with detailed descriptions for every parameter, including nested birth fields, house_number, and response_format. The description itself adds little beyond the schema, merely restating optionality of house_number and the input source, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding above the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Computes'), a precise resource ('KP significator chains'), and a clear scope ('for all houses or one optional house from BirthData'). It also names the primary sibling tools to avoid confusion with, making the tool's unique purpose immediately identifiable.

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 workflow section explicitly recommends calling asterwise_get_kp_chart before this tool to establish cusps, giving clear when-to-use direction. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section further clarifies how this tool differs from related KP and natal chart tools, so an agent can select it appropriately.

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

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

The description is consistent with the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations and adds context about output contents. It does not contradict annotations, though it relies on them for side-effect transparency.

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 description is well organized with workflow and disambiguation sections and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy exists between the opening paragraph and the later disambiguation note.

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?

Given the detailed input schema, output schema indication, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation and clear differentiation from numerous sibling tools.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% field-level descriptions with examples and defaults. The prose adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond identifying the Lal Kitab system.

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 clearly states the tool produces the Lal Kitab house and planet schema plus Rin flags from BirthData using Lal Kitab placement rules, and explicitly distinguishes it from the natal chart and remedies tools.

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 provides explicit guidance: it is standalone for Lal Kitab queries, lists the recommended follow-up tool, and warns against confusing it with asterwise_get_natal_chart and asterwise_get_lal_kitab_remedies.

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

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it lists per-planet stressed analysis, priority tiers, specific action row categories (remedy, donation, keep, avoid), and points to the output/error contract.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into compact WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH sections. Each section earns its place, and there is no redundancy with annotations or schema.

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 tool has an output schema, so return-value details are already covered. The description supplies workflow context, alternative tool routing, input contract, and a link to the full output/error contract, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the input contract 'BirthData only', which is useful but does not provide any additional meaning beyond the schema; 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 opens with a specific verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('Lal Kitab style totkas per stressed planet'), and specifies the output shape (priority tiers and typed action rows). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from asterwise_get_remedies and asterwise_get_gemstone_recommendations, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the 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?

The WORKFLOW section gives a concrete before-step ('asterwise_get_lal_kitab_chart') and an explicit AFTER: None, and the DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names alternatives and their differentiating focus. This makes when-to-use and when-not-to-use unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds context beyond annotations by declaring the tool standalone (no workflow dependencies) and noting the input is validated upstream. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses clearly labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) that each earn their place. Slightly long but efficiently organized with zero filler; the docs link consolidates the full contract rather than inlining it.

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 values need not be spelled out. The description covers the input contract, workflow dependencies, sibling disambiguation, and points to a docs URL for the full output/error contract. For a read-only two-parameter tool this is nearly complete, with only the error behavior deferred to the external docs.

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% — both date (YYYY-MM-DD format) and response_format (markdown/json enum with default) are documented in the schema. The description's INPUT CONTRACT note ('date string only') reinforces but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (derives), resource (Lo Shu three-by-three frequency grid), input source (birth-date digits), and the analytical outputs (planes, missing/repeated digits, per-digit traits). It also explicitly names two sibling tools it should not be confused with, which sets it apart from the dozens of numerological 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 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly routes the agent to asterwise_get_numerology_profile for letter-based Western numbers and asterwise_get_name_correction for spelling harmonics. The INPUT CONTRACT states the sole accepted input (date string) and that validation is handled upstream, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool is 'condensed', includes a 'date_specific flag', and forwards name/date 'upstream without local checks'. It also links to the full output and error contract, though it does not detail failure modes inline.

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 description is well-structured with a front-loaded summary, then compact WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE sections. Every sentence adds distinguishing or operational value, and the documentation link avoids bloating the description further.

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?

For a simple read-only, idempotent, 3-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers workflow, input contract, sibling differentiation, and points to the authoritative documentation for output and error details.

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 the schema already documents name, date, and response_format with formats, defaults, and enums. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond calling date a 'birth date', which the schema already captures. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches condensed lucky-number guidance for a name and birth date' and enumerates exact payload elements. It also explicitly differentiates from nearby siblings in the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, so an agent can identify the tool unambiguously.

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 workflow section states there is no prerequisite, and that asterwise_get_numerology_profile should be used afterward if deeper context is needed. The DO NOT CONFUSE section explicitly names the alternatives and the conditions that make them inappropriate, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it derives the result from Life Path and Expression numbers, reduces to a single digit/master number, and gives the interpretive meaning (wish/true desire emerging around age 35). It does not discuss response format, but an output schema exists and a docs link is provided, so the extra burden is low.

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 description is tightly organized into labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) that are front-loaded with the core calculation before contextual details. There is no filler; each sentence earns its place, and the docs link is placed at the end where it belongs.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent calculation with a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: workflow dependency, input contract, sibling differentiation, and a link to the full output/error contract. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete input contracts for name ('Full legal name as used at birth' with example 'Arjun Mehta') and date ('YYYY-MM-DD format' with example '1985-11-12'), which clarifies ambiguous wording in the schema. response_format is not mentioned in the description, but the schema fully documents it with an enum and default.

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 ('Calculates') and resource ('the Maturity number as the sum of Life Path and Expression numbers'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from asterwise_get_numerology_profile and asterwise_get_personal_cycles in the DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section. This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from 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?

Provides explicit guidance: a BEFORE workflow recommending asterwise_get_numerology_profile to confirm inputs, and a DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section listing two alternatives and the exact conditions that make them different (full profile vs fixed number; annual cycles vs fixed number). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance required.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds useful behavioral context by noting that inputs are not validated locally and bad values become MCP_INTERNAL_ERROR. This clarifies error behavior and reinforces the read-only, non-destructive nature. No contradictions exist, and since annotations cover the primary safety profile, the description's extra detail earns a strong score.

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 description is structured with clear sections (main purpose, workflow, input contract, do-not-confuse) that each serve a distinct purpose. Though somewhat lengthy, the content is largely non-redundant—the only minor repetition is the mention of Panchanga/Choghadiya in the main description and the do-not-confuse section. Given the tool's complexity and the need to disambiguate from many siblings, the length is justified and the structure aids readability.

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 exceptionally complete: it states the exact purpose, provides workflow guidance (post-tool action), defines input contracts (including validation and error handling), explicitly distinguishes from two closely related sibling tools, and points to a full output/error contract via a link. This covers all contextual information an agent would need to decide when and how to use the tool, leaving no obvious gaps.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description augments this by explaining the 'activity' constraint (must be a supported English slug) and the from_date/to_date ordering rules. The nested location object remains somewhat vague ('For tools that need location but not birth time'), but the child properties (lat, lon, date, timezone, response_format) are well-defined. Overall, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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 clearly states that the tool 'searches a date span for top-scoring muhurta windows for a named activity' and specifies the underlying methods (Panchanga, Choghadiya, classical siddhi flags) and location requirement. This gives an unambiguous, specific understanding of the tool's purpose without needing to infer from the name or 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance through the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, contrasting this tool with asterwise_get_choghadiya and asterwise_get_panchanga, and the 'WORKFLOW' section that suggests a follow-up action (asterwise_get_panchanga). These directly tell an agent when to use this tool versus alternatives and what to do next, meeting the highest bar for usage clarity.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: the lookup is static, exact-name based, and 'nakshatra_name is forwarded raw — no local fuzzy matching or normalisation.' These are useful operational traits not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 a one-sentence summary, followed by clearly labeled WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DISAMBIGUATION sections. Every section earns its place and the external docs link handles deep error/output detail without bloating the description.

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?

Complete for a static lookup tool: it states scope, input exactness, standalone behavior, sibling exclusions, expected return categories, and points to a full output/error contract. With an output schema and rich annotations present, nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 the parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that nakshatra_name must be exact and is forwarded raw without fuzzy matching, which is a real semantic constraint beyond the schema. It does not add detail for response_format, but the schema covers that fully.

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 and resource: 'looks up static metadata for one of twenty-seven nakshatras by exact name' and names the return content. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools in the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' block, so an agent can see exactly what this tool is and is not.

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?

Provides explicit workflow context ('standalone', BEFORE/AFTER: None) and explicitly names two sibling alternatives with the condition that selects them: asterwise_get_natal_chart computes birth nakshatra, asterwise_get_dasha uses Moon nakshatra for timing. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds that it computes from birth data and points to a full output/error contract. No contradictions with the annotations.

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 description is well structured with WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE, and a link to the full contract. Purpose is front-loaded; some repetition with the schema exists but it is not excessive.

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 covers purpose, workflow, key input defaults, sibling distinctions, and directs users to the full output/error contract. Since an output schema exists, detailed return-value explanation is not required.

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% and every parameter already has descriptions, defaults, formats, and enums. The prose input contract mostly restates the schema and omits response_format and ayanamsa, so it adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description opens with 'Returns a personalised daily prediction using Tarabala and Chandrabala', giving a specific verb, resource, and method. It also explicitly names sibling tools not to confuse with, making its scope unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance via 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' for nakshatra_details, panchanga, and biorhythm, and adds a workflow note that panchanga should follow for full daily context. This clearly distinguishes it from alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context about scoring, suggesting alternate spellings, and echoing recommendation stub fields, which goes beyond the annotations. The vague phrase 'stub fields' is a minor gap, but not contradictory.

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 description is compact and well-organized into labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH). It avoids unnecessary repetition, though the 'echoes recommendation stub fields' phrase is slightly obscure but not wordy.

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 provides a full output and error contract link, identifies the tool's place in a broader workflow, and clarifies its scope relative to siblings. With an output schema present (as indicated by context signals), it does not need to detail return structures. Minor ambiguity around 'stub fields' prevents a perfect score.

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% for all three parameters (name, date, response_format) with descriptions already provided. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the INPUT CONTRACT note ('name and date strings only; upstream validates'), which is helpful but does not substantially enhance the schema-level definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's specific verb ('scores'), the subject ('personal name'), and the reference ('birth-date Life Path'), plus the action of suggesting alternate spellings. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like asterwise_get_business_name_analysis by explicitly noting the personal-name focus.

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 WORKFLOW section explicitly recommends running asterwise_get_numerology_profile before using this tool, and the DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names two specific alternatives (business name analysis and Chaldean numerology) with clear distinctions. This provides concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses important behavioral details: unknown birth times are accepted as '00:00' without error but yield unreliable lagna results, and a sunrise chart is used when time is omitted. It also explains output format options and the API's lack of flagging for unreliable results, adding significant transparency.

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 description is well-structured with clear paragraphs for purpose, workflow, input contract, and distinction. It is slightly verbose (e.g., repeating 'BirthData enforces...' when the schema already conveys this), but it front-loads the core purpose and keeps each section relevant. The link to full docs is a good touch, but the length could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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 covers the essential context: what the tool does, how to use it, the unknown-time caveat, and a link to the full output/error contract. It does not enumerate the exact return fields, but that is available via the linked docs and the output schema reference. It is fairly complete for a tool with this complexity, though a bit more detail on common error scenarios would elevate it.

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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all parameters, including formats, enums, defaults, and constraints. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond what is in the schema, such as noting the ayanamsa enum is 'local (Pydantic)' and pointing to a documentation link. This aligns with the baseline of 3 given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Computes the full sidereal natal chart from BirthData and returns planet rows, houses, aspects, arudhas, upapada, bhava cusps, and avakhada metadata.' This is a specific verb (computes) with a clear resource (sidereal natal chart) and distinguishes it from the divisional chart sibling.

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 explicitly contrasts with 'asterwise_get_divisional_chart' by noting 'sixteen vargas only, not the primary radix bundle returned here.' Additionally, it provides workflow context ('BEFORE: None... AFTER: RECOMMENDED — asterwise_get_yogas'), guiding when this tool fits in a sequence.

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