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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the result is deterministic and LLM-free, and it shares a compute path with the /api/b2b/varga endpoint. It says nothing about error behavior, required auth, or how results are structured per division.

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

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the operational notes. The enumeration of sixteen divisions is verbose but mirrors a real constraint; otherwise there is 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?

For a two-parameter compute tool with a nested required birth_data object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and determinism but omits return shape and validation/error expectations. Adequate but with clear 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 description lists the sixteen division codes, but those are already the enum values in the schema, so the added value is minimal. It says nothing about the birth_data object (dob/tob/lat/lng/tz) or the tz offset-vs-IANA duality, though those nested fields do carry their own 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 names a specific resource (divisional/varga chart placements) and scope (all sixteen divisions), so an agent knows exactly what is computed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_chart_facts or get_dasha, but the 'varga' framing is distinctive enough to route 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for varga/divisional charts as opposed to the rasi chart or dasha tools. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_chart_facts, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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