Kundlit Vedic Astrology

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying behavioral details such as the verdict, named types, and affected houses, which are not conveyed by annotations alone.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the key information, though it could be slightly shorter.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values: verdict, type, full/partial, affected houses, and plain explanation. This is sufficient for a check tool with well-documented parameters.

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 description is not burdened to explain parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters, so 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 clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'Kaal Sarp dosha' with specific output details (verdict, type, full/partial, affected houses, explanation). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like check_manglik or get_janam_kundali.

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 implies the tool is for checking Kaal Sarp dosha but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling context is not addressed.

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, so no destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing what the output includes (verdict, severity, triggers, cancellations, remedies), providing behavioral context 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though slight restructuring could group output items more clearly.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description sufficiently captures the tool's purpose and output. It does not detail parameter usage (e.g., place vs coordinates), but the schema covers that. Overall adequate for a checking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter explained. The description's phrase 'from their birth details' adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 checks whether a person is Manglik, listing specific output components (verdict severity, trigger points, cancellations, remedies). It distinguishes from sibling tools like match_kundli or get_janam_kundali, which serve different 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?

The description implies use when needing Manglik assessment, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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, so no contradiction. Description adds value by listing exact return fields (nakshatra, rashi, lagna, navamsa) and states it is a single call, but does not mention any additional behavioral details like error handling or data source.

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?

Two sentences: first lists return fields, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Description covers what the tool returns and when to use it. No output schema, but return fields are listed. Lacks explanation of prerequisites or error conditions, but sufficient for a read-only tool with clear 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed param descriptions. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns core identity of Vedic birth chart including nakshatra, rashi, lagna, navamsa lagna. It distinguishes from sibling get_janam_kundali by noting it is lighter and for specific queries.

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 tells when to use this tool: when user only asks for nakshatra, moon sign, or ascendant, implying it is lighter than get_janam_kundali, which is the alternative.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, detailing the specific outputs (current dasha periods, end dates, balance at birth, full timeline), but does not mention any edge cases or limitations.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently packs all key information: what the tool returns (current and full timeline), key features (end dates, balance). No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 complexity of Vimshottari dasha and that all parameters are well-documented in the schema, the description sufficiently covers the output. It lacks mention of return format or data structure, but the absence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly. Still, it is adequate for selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it summarizes the output but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or format. According to rubric, high coverage allows 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 clearly states the tool provides the Vimshottari dasha timetable, specifying that it includes current running periods with end dates, balance at birth, and full lifetime timeline. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sade_sati (which covers a specific period) and get_year_events (general events).

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 implies usage for obtaining Vimshottari dasha information but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks alternatives or context for choosing this tool over other astrology 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 indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by noting that place defaults to Delhi and is snapped to nearest supported city, and that sutak rules only apply for visible eclipses, enhancing transparency beyond 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 a single, comprehensive sentence that conveys all key details without extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no output schema, the description effectively explains the return fields and their meaning (type, times, magnitude, visibility, sutak rule) along with default behavior. It is sufficiently complete for this data retrieval 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. It reiterates the default behavior for place but does not add deeper semantics 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 specifies the verb (get all solar and lunar eclipses), resource (eclipses for a year), and includes detailed output fields and a special note on sutak rules, making the tool's purpose very clear and distinct 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 description clearly states what the tool retrieves, providing context for when to use it, but does not explicitly specify when not to use it or compare with 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=true, so the description need not reiterate safety. It adds value by detailing the computational behavior (computing ascendant, graha positions, dasha, yogas), but does not disclose potential failure modes or data source dependencies. With annotations present, the description provides adequate but not exceptional 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a list of outputs. It is information-dense without excess words, though breaking into two sentences would slightly improve 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content. It lists major components (ascendant, positions, dasha, yogas), which is comprehensive for a summary. However, it omits mention of chart style or formatting details, but remains sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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%, meaning all six parameters are already documented clearly. The description only vaguely mentions 'birth date, time and place' without adding new semantic constraints or format guidance beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('Vedic birth chart summary'), and lists concrete output components (ascendant, graha positions, dasha, yogas), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools that focus on subsets (e.g., get_dasha_periods) or specific checks (e.g., check_manglik).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions. The context implies it is the comprehensive chart generator, but no explicit guidance is given.

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. The description adds useful context about being entertainment-grade and outlines the algorithm, which goes beyond annotation disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core functionality and alternative. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with clear annotations, the description adequately explains input, algorithm, output format (0-100 score with reading), and usage 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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minor context about name reduction but doesn't significantly enhance 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's purpose: calculating a light-hearted name-compatibility score using Pythagorean numerology. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool match_kundli, which is for serious marriage matching.

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 when to use (light-hearted entertainment) and recommends an alternative (match_kundli) for serious use, providing clear decision 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds that formatting characters are ignored and explains the reduction process, providing useful context 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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the process, input handling, and implied output, leaving no 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that any format (+, spaces, hyphens) works, clarifying input flexibility beyond the schema's maxLength and minLength.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: numerological reading of a mobile number, including digit summing, reduction to 1-9, ruling planet, and per-digit meaning. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_numerology by focusing on mobile numbers.

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 states the tool is for numerological readings of mobile/phone numbers, implying its use case. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the context makes it clear. It could benefit from mentioning that it is not for general numerology but for mobile numbers.

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. The description adds that the tool returns all time windows, supports personalization via janma_nakshatra/rashi, and defaults date to today. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists items efficiently. Slightly dense but not excessive; every clause 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?

Given the tool's complexity (many timing types) and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates all returned categories. However, it does not describe the output format or structure, which may be needed for parsing.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining that place is geocoded server-side, date defaults to today, and janma parameters yield personal verdicts. This goes beyond 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?

The description uses specific verbs ('get', 'pass') and clearly enumerates the exact set of timings returned (16 choghadiya, horas, rahu kaal, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_panchang which cover different aspects.

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 implies usage for obtaining all muhurta timings in one call but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_panchang for basic tithi/nakshatra) or when not to use it.

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 and destructiveHint=false; the description adds specific behavioral context (what is computed: mulank, bhagyank, their meanings, lucky attributions) without contradicting 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?

One adequately sized sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose; it slightly blends details but remains efficient overall.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers the inputs, outputs, and optional behavior without missing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%; the description adds meaning beyond schema by clarifying that time/place are not needed for birth_date and that name is optional for Chaldean number.

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 ('get') and resource ('numerology reading'), specifies the exact outputs (mulank, bhagyank, lucky attributions) and distinguishes it from sibling astrological tools by focusing on Vedic numerology.

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 implies usage for numerology readings from date of birth and mentions optional name input, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide alternatives among 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds that computations use Swiss Ephemeris and Lahiri ayanamsa, which is useful but does not disclose any potential limitations or side effects (e.g., geocoding accuracy or performance).

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 two sentences that front-load the main purpose and list of returned items. It is concise, though the second sentence could be slightly more streamlined. Overall, every phrase contributes meaning without 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?

Given 5 parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema, and 16 sibling tools, the description covers the essential behavior: what is computed, for what date/place, and the method. It omits details about error handling or output format, but for a read-only tool, completeness is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining defaults (date defaults to today, place is free-text and geocoded) and clarifying the relationship between place and lat/lon/timezone parameters, beyond what the schema states.

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 retrieves the Hindu panchang for a date and place, listing specific components like tithi, nakshatra, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_muhurta_timings or check_kaal_sarp, which serve different astrological needs.

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 specifies when to use (for panchang details for any date and worldwide location) and default behavior (date defaults to today). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct references to alternatives among the 16 sibling 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, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about resolving the birth bird and returning a rated schedule, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise, two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool complexity (7 parameters), perfect schema coverage, and annotations, the description adequately explains the input and output (yaama schedule with rated sub-periods). It lacks examples or return format details, but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.

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 descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description mentions birth details and optional date but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides. It adds minor context (e.g., place geocoded server-side, years supported). 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 clearly states the tool resolves the birth bird from birth details and returns a yaama schedule with sub-periods rated 1-10 for starting important work. It also mentions optional date evaluation, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling astrology 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 explains that the tool is for personal timing based on Pancha Pakshi Shastra. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the context of sibling tools allows inference. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about what the tool returns (phases, dates, rashi, position, dhaiya status) and the optional as-of-date parameter. No contradictions with annotations; it enhances transparency by detailing the output content.

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 a single comprehensive sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and lists details. It is informative but slightly dense; breaking into two sentences could improve readability. Still concise overall.

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 complexity of the astrological calculation and no output schema, the description adequately outlines what will be returned (phases, dates, statuses). It covers the main aspects without missing critical information. Could mention error handling or edge cases but 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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds slight context by mentioning the optional as-of-date for evaluation, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states it finds a person's Sade Sati status, explains what that is (Saturn's transit over natal Moon sign), and lists specific details returned (phases, dates, rashi, position, dhaiya status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_kaal_sarp or check_manglik by focusing uniquely on Sade Sati.

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 implies usage for checking Sade Sati status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It provides clear context but lacks explicit usage 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions classical-text citations, which is a positive trait, but does not disclose any other behavioral aspects (e.g., data sources, computation complexity).

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 concise (two sentences) and efficiently lists the output components. However, it could be slightly improved by front-loading the main output type and briefly noting the data format.

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 complexity of Jaimini astrology and no output schema, the description lists key components but does not explain how they are presented or used. This may leave an agent uncertain about the output structure, but the sibling context and annotation hints mitigate some 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?

All input schema parameters have descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 returns 'The Jaimini layer of a birth chart' and enumerates specific components: upapada lagna, arudha padas, charakarakas, karakamsha lagna. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_janam_kundali or get_dasha_periods, which cover different astrological layers.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the mention of Jaimini layer implies it is for specialized readings, no when-not-to-use or contextual triggers are given.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms it's a lookup. It adds important context: events include exact local date and significance, and year range is from two back to two ahead. No contradictions.

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?

Description is front-loaded with main purpose, uses two sentences plus examples, and is concise. Slight lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) but still effective.

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?

No output schema, so description partially covers return format ('exact local date and one-line significance'), but lacks explicit structure (e.g., array fields). Given 4 parameters and no output schema, more detail on response would be helpful.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds value: for category, it explains 'festival' means all events and lists enum families; for place, it mentions default and snapping; for year, it specifies valid range. These enrich 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 'Dated Hindu calendar events for a whole year at a city', provides examples of festivals/vrats, and distinguishes categories. It is specific and easily understood.

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 explains when to use each category (festival vs specific vrat types) and mentions optional month filter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_panchang or get_muhurta_timings.

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, so the tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds context about the computation method and output components, which is useful but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral details (e.g., auth, rate limits) 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?

Single sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every phrase adds value; no superfluous text. Ideal 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately outlines what the tool returns (koots, doshas, cancellations, verdict). Combined with high schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for a computational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add significant meaning beyond mentioning the method (Ashtakoot, 36 points), which is general context, not parameter-specific. 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?

Description clearly specifies it performs marriage compatibility using the classical Ashtakoot method, listing the eight koots, scoring out of 36, and mentioning doshas, cancellations, and verdict. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like get_love_compatibility.

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 implies usage for marriage compatibility but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_love_compatibility). No when-not guidelines or exclusions are provided.

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