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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about location-adjusted timing and that it returns one or multiple dates, but it does not disclose error behavior or caveats beyond that. This is adequate but not rich.

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 tightly worded sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the result description follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 explain return fields. It covers the key inputs (festival, year, location) and the location-adjusted aspect. It might optionally mention that festival names must come from the API's predefined list, but that is already fully covered in the festival parameter's schema description.

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 festival parameter already includes detailed semantics including the allowed value format and rejection behavior. The description's mention of 'given year' and 'location-adjusted timing' aligns with the parameters but adds no new meaning 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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('date(s) of a specific festival in a given year'), and even adds return details. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like divine_get_festivals_by_date, but the phrase 'specific festival' makes the core 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 implies usage: use this tool when you need the date(s) of a named festival for a specific year and location. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer (e.g., when you need festivals by date 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: no birth data is required and the result is a generic interpretation for the named Maha + Antar combination, which is not inferable from the schema 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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first line and a short clarifying note beneath it. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name 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?

Given the low complexity of three parameters, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the return type, the generic nature of the response, and the absence of a birth-data requirement, leaving no critical gap.

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 maha_dasha, antar_dasha, and lan with examples. The description only echoes the parameter relationship as 'Maha + Antar combination' without adding new value formats, constraints, or default behavior 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?

The description clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Get textual interpretation of an Antar Dasha (Maha→Antar) period.' It also notes the endpoint returns a generic interpretation for a named combination, which helps distinguish it from personalized birth-data-based dasha tools, though it does not explicitly name siblings like divine_get_pratyantar_dasha_analysis.

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 statement 'No birth data needed' gives a clear condition for using this endpoint, and 'generic interpretation' clarifies that it serves the non-personalized case. It doesn't name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the report content but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations, so a 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and output, with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured and 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 presence of an output schema (which explains return values) and annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and expected content. It does not mention the required full birth details, but the schema makes that obvious. For a read-only report tool, this is complete enough, though a note on when to use it would improve 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 description provides no parameter-specific information. However, the input schema itself has detailed descriptions for each field (e.g., 'Birth day (e.g., '24')'), so the schema covers parameter semantics. With high schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 is suitable.

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 clear purpose: 'Get a detailed report based on the ascendant (Lagna) sign' and specifies the output content (personality traits, physical characteristics, life tendencies). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like divine_get_uday_lagna or divine_get_basic_astro_details, which may also involve the ascendant. A clear verb and resource are present, but sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios like 'use this for detailed ascendant-based personality insights' or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context, which is insufficient given the large sibling list.

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, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the computation evaluates the 8 named Gunas and produces a score out of a maximum of 36. 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 short and front-loaded with the main action, then uses a compact bullet-like list for the 8 Gunas. Every sentence adds relevant information with 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?

The description gives the method, regional context, and scoring basis, and the output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, for a tool with this much input complexity, it should at least state that complete birth details for both individuals are required; the absence of this leaves the agent reliant entirely on the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining that full birth details for both people are required. It only says 'for two people' and does not mention the need for names, birth date/time, place, coordinates, gender, or timezone for each person, which is a major gap for a 22-field input.

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 action ('Perform Ashtakoot Milan') and the resource ('8-point compatibility matching for two people'), and it lists the exact Gunas evaluated with a maximum score of 36. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like divine_get_dashakoot_milan, though the 'North India' context indirectly helps differentiate it.

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 provides a clear contextual signal by calling this 'the most popular matching method in North India', which guides an agent on regional use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as divine_get_dashakoot_milan.

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the output format (8x12 table per planet) and purpose, which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling or data requirements. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not extensive.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and output, and every sentence adds value. There is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (requires full birth details), the description explains the core functionality and output, and the schema covers the input parameters. With an output schema present, return values are not needed. It could be slightly more explicit about the need for birth details, but the schema provides that. Overall, it is reasonably complete.

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 tool description contains no parameter information, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema itself has detailed descriptions for each birth detail field, but the description does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining that birth details are required or how they relate to the tool. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which is adequate but the description offers no additional semantic help.

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 Bhinnashtakvarga (individual Ashtakvarga) tables for all planets, specifies the output as 8x12 benefic dot tables, and notes its use for transit prediction and sign strength analysis. This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from the sibling divine_get_sarvashtakavarga, which would handle total Ashtakvarga.

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 usage context ('Used for transit prediction and sign strength analysis') and implicitly differentiates from other tools by focusing on individual Ashtakvarga. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like sarvashtakavarga, so it 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minor context about the output (favorable time windows, specific muhurat types) but does not go beyond what the annotations already imply. It does not contradict 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clarifying details. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 core purpose and output but lacks critical usage context regarding when to use this general muhurat tool versus the numerous specific muhurat siblings (e.g., marriage, vehicle purchase). Given the high number of related tools, an agent could easily confuse this with a specific muhurat tool. The presence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter documentation mitigates some gaps, but the absence of usage guidance makes it incomplete for correct tool 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?

The description does not mention any parameters. The input schema has a top-level parameter 'params' with no description, and the nested properties (day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, lan) do have descriptions in the schema, but the schema_description_coverage is effectively 0% for the top-level. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate by explaining key required inputs, but it does not. The agent must rely entirely on the nested schema, which is comprehensive, but the description adds zero value for 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'auspicious timings (shubh muhurat)' for a given date and location. It further explains the return content with examples (weddings, house-warming, travel) and mentions specific muhurat types (Abhijit Muhurat, Amrit Kaal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like divine_get_muhurat_marriage or divine_get_muhurat_house_entering, which focus on single activities.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling muhurat-specific tools (e.g., divine_get_muhurat_marriage, divine_get_muhurat_vehicle_purchase). It does not state that this is the general-purpose auspicious timings tool and that for specific activities one should use the dedicated muhurat tools. The distinction is only implicit through the naming, which is insufficient.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds the list of returned fields, which is some transparency, but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral quirks. Given annotations carry the main burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a succinct list of return fields. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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?

This tool requires a complex input object with many fields and has a large sibling family, yet the description omits usage context, any parameter prerequisites, or differentiation from alternatives. With an output schema present, return format is covered, but the description lacks enough guidance for an agent to confidently 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?

The description provides zero explanation of parameters, and schema coverage by description is 0%. Although the schema itself has detailed per-field descriptions, the tool description does not compensate, which it should given the low coverage. Agents must rely solely on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 fetches basic astrological details for a person based on birth data and enumerates specific return fields (tithi, nakshatra, rashi, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve individual elements. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many specialized siblings (e.g., divine_get_tithi). The description only states what it does without any selection criteria or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral disclosure (auth, rate limits, side effects) beyond 'returns' data, and it does not contradict the annotations. It is consistent but not additive.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main action, and the second details the return payload. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff, though it could have added a routing hint without becoming 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?

For a read-only tool with output schema and annotations, the description adequately summarizes output. However, with over a hundred siblings including 'divine_get_bhava_kundli', 'divine_get_planet_analysis', and 'divine_get_horoscope_chart', it does not position this tool relative to them, and parameter handling is left entirely to the 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 description says 'for a birth chart' but does not enumerate any of the required input details (name, date, time, place, coordinates, timezone). Context reports 0% schema description coverage, so the tool description should compensate; it does not. The agent must open the schema to understand the single 'params' object.

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 identifies the verb/resource: 'Get the house-by-house (bhava) analysis for a birth chart' and lists the returned content (sign, house lord, occupying planets, aspects, interpretive content). It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'divine_get_bhava_kundli' or other house-related 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 implies a usage context ('need house-by-house interpretation') but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no preconditions. It is neither misleading nor completely absent, so it earns the middle score.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'interpretations' rather than raw positions or numbers)Skip a useful behavioral detail about response content, but it does not mention response size, pagination, or any special processing behavior beyond the annotation-backed guarantees.

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 with no filler: the first gives the immediate purpose, the second tells exactly which house groups are covered. Every phrase earns its place, and the most important information (grouping by house category) is front-loaded.

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

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

For a read-only tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the domain (birth chart), states the output shape (grouped interpretations), and lists the included categories. It does not explicitly mention that precise birth time and place are required, but the schema's required fields and the KundliInput definition compensate.

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 0% for the single top-level 'params' parameter, and the tool description provides zero information about input requirements. The nested KundliInput definition does describe individual birth fields, and the tool name implies a birth chart, but the description neither explains that full birth details are needed nor gives any parameter-specific context, leaving an important gap for the agent.

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 ('Get predictions grouped by house category for a birth chart') and enumerates the exact classical house groups returned (kendra, trikone, trishadaya, trik, maraka, dhana). It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like divine_get_bhava_kundli or divine_get_bhava_analysis.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related bhava, dasha, and transit tools in the sibling list. It states what predictions are returned but never provides conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool suggestions, leaving the choice to inference.

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 by stating it returns the chart as SVG and image, and by clarifying the chart_id range (1 to 12). 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The comparison to the rashi chart and the return-format note are useful, though the 'bhava chart number' phrase in the first sentence is slightly redundant with the later chart_id explanation.

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 19-parameter schema, full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides enough additional context to select and invoke the tool. It explains the chart type distinction and output format, while the schema already documents the required birth details and styling options.

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 to chart_id by calling it a 'bhava chart number' and noting it ranges from 1 to 12, but that largely repeats the schema. No other parameters receive additional semantic guidance 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get Bhava Kundli (house-based chart)'. It also differentiates itself from the rashi chart by explaining that Bhava shows exact house cusps and planetary positions within houses, not just sign placements. This clearly separates it from the many chart-related 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 gives explicit comparative guidance: use this chart when you need house cusps and planetary positions within houses, rather than sign placements. It does not name a specific sibling tool or state a when-not condition, but the contrast with the rashi chart gives a clear selection 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the output composition, but it does not disclose error conditions, response shape, or computation assumptions.

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 with no filler; the main action and output details are front-loaded. Every clause contributes either the operation, the scope, or the return composition.

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 output schema and nested input schema carry much of the detail, so the description is minimally adequate for invoking the tool. However, with dozens of sibling astrology tools, it lacks guidance on prerequisites or when to prefer this tool over closely related strength/chart tools, leaving the agent to infer 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 description coverage is 0% for the single top-level parameter (params), and the tool description only explains the output without mentioning what input data is required. The nested KundliInput schema does document birth fields, which prevents a score of 1, but the description itself fails to compensate for the low 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?

States a specific operation (Get Bhava Bala) on a concrete resource (birth chart house strength), and clarifies the return value: numeric strength of the twelve houses, including bhavadhipati bala and disha bala. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from close alternatives like shadbala or bhava_kundli.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as divine_get_shadbala, divine_get_bhava_kundli, or divine_get_bhava_analysis. It only says 'for a birth chart,' which is a scope statement, not a usage rule or comparison.

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 fully covered. The description adds that the tool computes two specific astrological values for a given date and location, which is useful context, but it does not disclose output structure or any edge cases (e.g., invalid date, missing nakshatra).

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, and the second provides brief definitions of the two concepts. Every sentence earns its place, though the definitions could be slightly more precise (e.g., 'Moon's strength for each rashi' is a bit vague).

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 and simple input parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, given the large sibling list of similar astrological tools, the description could better clarify what makes this tool unique (e.g., specifically for muhurta selection) and whether it requires birth nakshatra as input or derives it from the date/location.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'date and location' which maps to the PanchangInput fields (day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone), but it does not explain the 'lan' parameter or the 'params' wrapper. The schema itself documents each field, so the description adds only minimal semantic value 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Chandrabalam and Tarabalam') and explains what each term means. It distinguishes itself from other panchang-related tools by naming the two specific astrological concepts, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like divine_get_panchang or divine_get_tithi.

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 context by stating both are 'important for muhurta selection,' which gives an agent a clear reason to select this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related calculations (e.g., divine_get_panchang for general daily calendar).

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 that it returns specific data, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, language support, or error handling) beyond what the annotations imply. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function, the second lists the specific outputs.

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 (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true') and annotations cover safety, the description adequately summarizes the expected return values. It mentions the key outputs (month name, system, dates), which is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does without listing every field.

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 (day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, month_type) have descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline for 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 clearly states the tool retrieves Chandramasa (Hindu lunar month) details, specifying the exact resource (lunar month) and the type of information returned (month name, Purnimant/Amant system, start/end dates). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like divine_get_panchang or divine_get_tithi.

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 by stating it's for a given date and location, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as divine_get_chandramasa_list or divine_get_panchang. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing, so the guidance is only implied.

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 openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns start and end dates of each lunar month, which is useful, but it fails to explain the list semantics (e.g., how many months are returned, whether it is month-scoped or year-scoped). It also does not mention the deprecated 'day' and 'lan' fields or their behavior, leaving behavioral gaps despite annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, but it repeats the same idea in the second sentence without adding new information. It could be more concise by merging the two sentences and using the space to clarify the period semantics. It is not bloated, but it lacks key details that would make it more useful.

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 (not shown), so return format is presumably covered. However, the description is ambiguous about whether the tool returns a list for the whole year, a specific month, or a range. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling divine_get_chandramasa, and the deprecated fields are not addressed. Given the required month parameter and the existence of many sibling tools, this description is incomplete 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?

The schema itself provides descriptions for all fields, but the description does not compensate for the month parameter, which is required yet omitted from the description's summary of 'specified year and location.' With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should highlight the required inputs and their roles, but it only mentions year and location, leaving month and timezone unexplained. This is a significant gap for a tool with a single nested parameter object.

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 clear verb ('Get list') and resource ('Chandramasa (Hindu lunar months)'), and mentions it returns start and end dates. However, the phrase 'for a given period' is vague, and the subsequent 'for the specified year and location' conflicts with the required month parameter in the schema, creating ambiguity about what exactly the list covers. It partially distinguishes from the sibling divine_get_chandramasa by being a list, but not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus divine_get_chandramasa or other calendar tools. There is no mention of when not to use it, what inputs are required, or what distinguishes it from similar list tools like divine_get_month_tithi_list. The description provides zero usage 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 signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the result is month-scoped, organized per moon sign, and the day parameter narrows to one date. It does not contradict 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: a direct action statement, a brief domain definition, and a result/filter note. No filler or 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?

With a read-only, idempotent tool, an output schema, and a clear scope, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what to request and how to narrow it. The domain explanation resolves ambiguity, and the required structural details are carried by the 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 description adds meaning by grouping required inputs as 'month and location' and highlighting the optional day. However, context reports 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate for all parameters such as lat/lon/tzone, year, or language. It is helpful but incomplete as a standalone parameter guide.

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 the specific resource 'Chandrashtama periods', and adds enough domain context to distinguish it from dozens of panchang and timing siblings. It also describes what the output looks like: month periods per moon sign, with optional narrowing by day.

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 clear context for when this is relevant ('considered inauspicious for new ventures') and an explicit usage lever ('set day to narrow to a specific date'). It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the use case is reasonably unambiguous among the 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 and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the meaning of the output (good/bad periods for activities), which is useful for interpretation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that, such as language support or error handling, which would be expected in the absence of annotation coverage.

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 with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It is concise, contains no fluff, and the second sentence adds meaningful context about what Choghadiya is. This is well-structured and easy 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?

The tool has an output schema and the input schema covers parameters, so the description does not need to explain those. However, the lack of usage guidance and differentiation from sibling tools leaves an agent uncertain about when to invoke this tool. Given the large sibling list, a more complete description would include a note on when Choghadiya is relevant, such as for muhurat 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?

The description contains no parameter information, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each field (day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, lan). With high schema coverage, the description adds nothing beyond what the schema already offers, 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 states 'Get Choghadiya (auspicious time slots) for a given date and location.' This clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (Choghadiya), and explains the concept of dividing day/night into planet-ruled slots. It is not a tautology and is specific enough to distinguish from generic Panchang, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like divine_get_auspicious_timings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention any alternatives or conditions for selecting this over divine_get_panchang, divine_get_auspicious_timings, or others. An agent cannot determine suitability without further 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that natural, temporal, and composite friendship/enmity are all computed and that the result covers all planet pairs.

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 with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the additional sentence adds valuable domain clarification 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 read-only table-generation tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient for selection and invocation. It lacks explicit usage guidance and parameter context, but the schema and annotations cover most of the operational requirements.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the input requirements. It only says 'birth chart,' which is a weak hint; it does not clarify that full birth details are needed or explain the single 'params' object.

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 operation ('Get composite (Panchda) friendship table') and the resource scope ('all planets', 'all planet pairs in the birth chart'). It clearly distinguishes this from the many sibling tools by naming a unique astrological output.

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?

There is no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead of' statement, but the description makes the function's unique purpose clear: friendship/enmity relationships between planets. No sibling covers this exact resource, so the intended context is inferable.

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 non-destructive. The description adds that it evaluates 10 categories with a max score of 36, which gives some insight into output content but not additional behavioral context like rate limits or authorization requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 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 description is three short, focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, adds regional context, and then gives a comparative statement. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 is a straightforward matching API with a clear purpose. The description explains what it does and how it differs from a sibling, and the schema and annotations cover the remaining operational details. The only minor gap is not explaining what the 10 categories are, but that is not necessary 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?

The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the input schema provides thorough descriptions for every parameter (e.g., birth day, latitude, etc.). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to duplicate this information.

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 ('Perform'), a clear resource (Dashakoot Milan), and explains it's a 10-point compatibility matching for two people. It also differentiates from the sibling tool by mentioning it's more comprehensive than Ashtakoot Milan, 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 implies usage by highlighting that it's more comprehensive than Ashtakoot Milan, which suggests choosing this for a more detailed 10-category match. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other matching tools like Manglik or basic compatibility checks.

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 that it returns all festivals falling within the month, but does not disclose why location/timezone parameters are needed or any edge cases in date computation.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary scope ('English calendar month') is front-loaded, and the second sentence reinforces the return semantics without 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?

Output schema and annotations cover much of the operational context, but the description omits why six required parameters including lat, lon, place, and tzone are needed for a festival lookup. It also does not help an agent distinguish this tool from similar festival-related siblings.

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 having type and example documentation. The description itself adds little beyond noting the Gregorian-month scope, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Get all Hindu festivals for a specific English calendar month' and clarifies the calendar system as Gregorian. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling festival tools such as divine_get_festivals_by_month or divine_get_festivals_by_date.

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 usage context is implied: use when seeking Hindu festivals within a Gregorian month. No alternatives or exclusions are given, and the description does not explain when to choose this over the many other festival-related 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds that the tool returns 'all Hindu festivals and observances', but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as response size, pagination, or location dependence beyond what is inferable from the schema.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded first, followed by a clear scope statement. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 and annotations covering safety, so the description does not need to duplicate those. However, it omits any mention of required location parameters or typical usage context. An agent could successfully invoke the tool based on the schema, but the description alone is incomplete for understanding the data requirements and the fact that this is a Hindu-specific, date-limited query.

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 0% for the top-level 'params' field, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely mentions 'given date and location' and does not explain that a full date (day, month, year), place name, coordinates, and timezone are required. The required nested fields are left undocumented in the description, and while the schema provides individual field descriptions, the tool description itself fails to orient the agent on the parameter structure.

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 ('Get') and resource ('festivals falling on a specific date'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like divine_get_festivals_by_month and divine_find_festival. It also specifies the cultural scope ('Hindu festivals and observances'), which helps an agent disambiguate from Tamil, Malayalam, or English festival 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusion criteria, fallback conditions, or relationships to sibling tools. An agent must infer context purely from the name and generic description.

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, covering the given set of behaviors. The description adds the month list and implies a broad scope, but it does not discuss response volume, pagination, or format, which is a gap but acceptable 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists the 12 months. It is efficient with no fluff, but the month list is duplicated in the schema, so it could be trimmed slightly.

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 (6 parameters, all required) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient clarity on why and when to use it. Missing nuances like behavior with invalid month names are minor and not critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. However, the description adds minimal semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as the list of months, which is already in the schema property. It does not explain how parameters like lat/lon/tzone are used together, which could be improved.

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 retrieves all Hindu festivals for a specified Hindu calendar month, identifying a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like divine_get_festivals_by_date or divine_find_festival, which could cause 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 implies usage for a broad month-level query but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like divine_get_festivals_by_date or divine_find_festival. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons, leaving the decision to the agent.

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 the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating that recommendations are based on planetary positions and include primary/alternative stones and wearing instructions, but it discloses no further behavioral caveats. 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 two tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first line and return-value details in the second. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 self-documenting input schema, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance among the many sibling divine_get_ tools, but the core invocation needs are covered.

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 only broadly gestures at the input ('birth chart', 'planetary positions') and does not explain the params object or its required fields. The nested KundliInput schema compensates with detailed per-field descriptions and examples, so the agent can still invoke the tool correctly without parameter detail in the 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 identifies the operation (get gemstone recommendations), the resource (gemstone suggestions), the input basis (birth chart/planetary positions), and the main output categories (primary gemstone, alternatives, wearing instructions). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby remedy tools like divine_get_rudraksha_suggestion.

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 intended trigger is evident: use this tool when a user wants gemstone recommendations derived from a birth chart. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives, so the selection guidance is more implicit than explicit.

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, which cover safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: the result is 'specific to the person's birth nakshatra,' indicating how the computation is scoped. However, it doesn't disclose any other operational behaviors (e.g., rate limits, data dependencies beyond the input). Given the annotations cover the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—the description supplements but does not substantially extend behavioral 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 extremely concise—two short lines—with the core purpose stated first and the output details following. There is no redundant or verbose text, and every sentence contributes meaning. It is well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 (a nested params object with many required birth details) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is reasonably complete. It lists the specific output components and scoping (birth nakshatra). The schema handles input documentation, and the output schema likely explains the response structure. Missing are any caveats about data accuracy or error conditions, but these are not essential for basic invocation. The tool is well-covered for its purpose.

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 tool description does not discuss parameters, but the nested schema ($defs/KundliInput) includes detailed descriptions for every field (day, month, year, hour, etc.). While the top-level 'params' property lacks a description (hence 0% schema coverage by the metric), the actual parameter documentation is comprehensive within the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies given that the schema effectively provides high coverage for the actual fields.

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 retrieves Ghata Chakra (adverse combinations) for a birth chart, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Ghata Chakra'). It enumerates the returned components (inauspicious day, tithi, nakshatra, yoga, karana, lagna), making its purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the distinct subject matter and specific output list sufficiently differentiate it from the many other astrological 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 implies when to use this tool—when adverse combinations (Ghata Chakra) are needed—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives might be preferable. Given the large sibling set, explicit routing would be helpful, but the intention is still inferable from the name and description. The lack of exclusion or alternative references keeps this at a 3 (implied usage) rather than a 2 (no 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 that it returns day and night segments plus Nalla Neram, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details like whether the response includes sunrise/sunset times, how timezone affects calculations, or any API-specific quirks.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the return value. Every sentence adds information. It could be slightly tighter, but it is efficient and well-structured.

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 and annotations covering safety, so the description need not explain return values in detail. However, given the large sibling set and the specialized nature of Gowri Panchangam, a note on the calculation system (South Indian) is present, but missing guidance on when this is the right tool versus divine_get_panchang or divine_get_choghadiya leaves a gap.

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 0%, but the schema itself has descriptive parameter names and examples for day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, and lan. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the Gowri Panchangam for a given date and location, and specifies the output: auspicious/inauspicious time segments (Laabam, Uthi, etc.) and Nalla Neram periods. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like divine_get_panchang or divine_get_choghadiya, which cover different calendrical systems.

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 South Indian Gowri Panchangam queries, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over divine_get_panchang, divine_get_choghadiya, or divine_get_auspicious_timings. The context signals show many overlapping sibling tools, so explicit when/when-not guidance would help.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context (sign changes, nakshatra transits, effects), but it does not describe limitations, output shape, or interpretation concerns. There is 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 compact and front-loads the core operation in the first sentence. The second sentence adds relevant return details without repeating schema information. Slightly more structure around usage would be an improvement, but it is appropriately concise.

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 14-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides a decent high-level purpose but does not explain why birth details are required or how transit timing is interpreted. It is adequate for an agent to guess the call shape, but there are noticeable contextual 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only restates the idea of a 'specific planet' and does not add detail beyond the schema, though it does clarify that 'Grah Gochar' means planetary transit.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Get Grah Gochar (planetary transit) data for a specific planet.' It also names concrete return content (sign changes, nakshatra transits, effects on the native), which helps an agent understand the tool's scope. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling transit tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings such as divine_get_planet_nakshatra_transit or divine_get_kundli_transit_ascendant. The intended use is implied by the name and the phrase 'for a specific planet,' but there are no explicit conditions or 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 convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool produces an SVG/image chart and supports styling toggles, which is useful but not deeply detailed. There is no discussion of edge-case behavior such as invalid locations or timezone handling, but the annotation coverage keeps this at an acceptable level.

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-structured: the core purpose is front-loaded, then supported chart types and styling options follow. The only minor weakness is the vague 'and more' phrase, but overall each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 22 parameters, a rich schema, and an output schema, the description covers the main intent and the most important optional controls well enough to make a valid call. The notable gap is the lack of differentiation from the many sibling chart tools, which matters given the crowded 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 22 parameters are individually documented. The description adds a helpful high-level summary of optional styling controls ('chart_type (north/south), hex colors, show_* toggles') but does not materially enhance the meaning of specific 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 description clearly states the resource ('Vedic horoscope chart / Kundli diagram'), the output format ('SVG and image'), and enumerates supported chart types (D1, D2, D3, D9, D10, chalit, sun, moon). It is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like divine_get_matching_horoscope_chart or divine_get_lal_kitab_horoscope_chart.

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 when to use the tool: when a Vedic horoscope chart is requested, including divisional charts and styling options. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, and in a large sibling set containing multiple chart tools, it does not guide the agent toward or away from those comparisons.

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, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful context by specifying that the tool returns unfavorable time windows and what those windows are, 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?

Three sentences with distinct jobs: scope, output content, and use case. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler 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?

An output schema exists and safety annotations cover side effects, so the description need not explain return structure. It covers what the tool returns and why to use it; the main gap is not explicitly distinguishing it from the auspicious-timings sibling, but the name largely handles that.

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 nested PanchangInput schema provides detailed field descriptions for day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, and optional language. The tool description only restates 'given date and location' and adds no parameter-level detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource: getting inauspicious timings for a date and location. It further names the exact returned categories (Rahu Kaal, Yamaganda, Gulika Kaal, Dur Muhurat), making it clearly distinguishable from 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?

Provides a clear use context ('avoiding inauspicious activities') but does not explicitly name the obvious alternative, divine_get_auspicious_timings, nor state when this tool should not be used. The differentiation is mostly implicit in the tool name.

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, covering safety. The description adds context about the sign-based nature of the dasha system, which is useful, but it does not discuss output format, limitations, or side effects. It adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive.

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 with no fluff, front-loading the main purpose and then adding explanatory context. It is concise and well-structured, letting the agent grasp the essence quickly.

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 an output schema and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and when it is appropriate. It highlights the rashi-based nature, distinguishing it from siblings, though it could be more explicit about differences from other dasha tools. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to use 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 description does not mention any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description fails to compensate for parameter meaning. While the schema itself has descriptions for each field, the tool description adds nothing to parameter understanding, so it scores low per the rubric.

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 gets Jaimini Chara Dasha periods for a birth chart, and explains the rashi-based system distinguishing it from other dasha tools like vimshottari or yogini. The verb, resource, and system are specific and 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 brief usage context ('Excellent for timing events in Jaimini astrology') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other dasha tools, nor when not to use it. It implies a use case but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or 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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and mutability. The description adds the interpretive meaning ('soul's desire and spiritual inclinations') and underlying calculation, but does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., missing Atmakaraka, D-9 chart availability) or output format. Bar is lower due to strong annotations, yet the description offers limited additional 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 three short sentences with zero redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a brief technical definition and a meaningful interpretation. It is concise yet informative, ideal for an agent scanning multiple tool descriptions.

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 a full output schema exists and the input schema is exhaustively described, the description correctly focuses on the astrological concept and its significance. It would be marginally improved by noting that this depends on the Atmakaraka in the Navamsha chart and that it requires standard birth data, but those are already implicit in the schema and tool family context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete 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 description coverage is 100% – every parameter (including the nested KundliInput fields and node_type) has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description adequately identifies the birth chart input expectation in its first sentence.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Get Karakamsha Lagna from Jaimini astrology for a birth chart.' It further clarifies the exact astronomical basis ('sign occupied by the Atmakaraka in the Navamsha chart') and its interpretation ('Reveals the soul's desire'), making it distinct from sibling Jaimini tools like chara dasha or padas.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other Jyotish tools, nor does it state conditions for use or mention alternatives. However, the term 'Karakamsha Lagna' is a precise concept, and the companion sentence about the soul's desire implies its purpose. It is not misleading, but it leaves the agent to infer usage 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by clarifying that it covers all houses and by explaining the interpretive meaning of Arudha Padas. 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence adds meaningful interpretive context rather than 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 rich annotations, detailed nested input schema, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and semantic meaning well. It lacks explicit usage guidance and parameter mapping, but those gaps are partly mitigated by the well-structured 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 description provides no parameter guidance, and schema description coverage is 0% at the top-level 'params' field. Although the referenced KundliInput schema is itself detailed, the description does not compensate for the low coverage as required, leaving the agent to rely entirely on 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Jaimini Padas / Arudha Padas'), and scope ('for all houses in a birth chart'). It also provides the conceptual meaning, which distinguishes it from other Jaimini siblings like chara dasha or karakamsha lagna.

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 what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over the many sibling astrological tools. There are no explicit alternatives, conditions, or exclusions mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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 tool is known safe. The description adds that it returns Karakas based on planetary degrees, which is useful context not in annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral aspects like response format or potential errors. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable, but it could add more context about what 'Jaimini-specific' entails.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then an example of what it returns. It is concise, but the second sentence could be more informative about usage. Still, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 input schema (KundliInput) is well-documented, the description covers the purpose and return concept. It lacks explicit detail on how node_type affects karaka calculation, but for a read-only tool with rich schema, this is fairly complete. It could mention that it's distinct from standard planetary positions, but that's already in purpose.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'params' object (KundliInput) describing birth details and 'node_type' describing the mean/truenode option. The description adds that planetary degrees are used for karaka calculation, but gives no extra meaning for parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to 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 clearly states it gets Jaimini-specific planetary positions and karakas, specifically Chara Karakas. It distinguishes from siblings like divine_get_planetary_positions and divine_get_jaimini_padas. The specificity of 'Jaimini-specific' and listing examples of karakas makes it 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 implies this tool is for Jaimini karaka calculations, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like divine_get_planetary_positions or divine_get_jaimini_padas. Given the large number of siblings, clearer differentiation would help an agent choose correctly.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict those. It adds algorithmic context (Parashar's nakshatra pada-to-sign mapping) rather than operational behavior such as period format, number of periods, or response structure, so it provides only partial additional 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?

About two short paragraphs with no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence provides useful distinguishing background but could be tightened.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and safety annotations fill most operational gaps, so the tool is callable from description plus schema. It still lacks guidance on how or why to select this dasha system relative to the many sibling dasha 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 description says nothing about the required full birth details, and top-level schema coverage is 0%, so it does not compensate for the missing parameter description. The nested KundliInput fields are well described in the schema, which prevents this from being a complete failure.

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 object ('Get Kaal Chakra Dasha periods') and adds a differentiating explanation of the calculation basis (nakshatra-based, Parashar, pada-to-sign mapping). It is not a mere restatement of the name, but it never explicitly names how it differs from sibling dasha tools such as vimshottari or yogini 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over any of the dozens of sibling dasha, panchang, or transit tools, and no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool names. The only implied context is that it applies to a birth chart, which is not enough to route among the sibling set.

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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns the yoga type and effects, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as calculation method sensitivity or how a non-occurrence is reported. No contradiction exists.

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, each earning its place: the action, the defining condition, and the return value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler 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?

The input schema fully documents parameters, the output schema exists, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description supplies the remaining essential context: what the tool detects, the qualifying condition, and what it returns. Nothing needed 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%, with all birth-detail fields and node_type documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is required because the schema already carries the burden. This matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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: 'Check for Kaal Sarpa Yoga in the birth chart.' It also defines the core condition and states that it returns the yoga type and effects, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the many sibling yoga and dosha 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?

Usage is implied clearly by the name and description: use this tool when checking for Kaal Sarpa Yoga. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, even though the sibling list contains several other yoga-related tools that could be confused with 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description contributes domain context about what karana is, but no additional behavioral traits such as response format, validation behavior, or system assumptions, so it stays at baseline.

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 compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the explanatory context kept to a single short paragraph; no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only lookup tool.

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 straightforward read-only lookup, the combination of the description's conceptual framing and the detailed nested input schema is enough for an agent to call the tool; the output schema covers return value details. It is slightly incomplete only in missing explicit comparison to related panchang 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 schema coverage is 0% and the description only paraphrases the inputs as 'date and location' without mapping to the actual required day/month/year/lat/lon/tzone fields or the optional language parameter. It therefore fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, even though the nested schema itself contains useful property 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 concrete action ('Get') and a distinct resource ('karana details'), and the follow-up explanation that karana is half of a tithi helps separate it from the similarly named tithi and panchang siblings. It could be stronger by explicitly naming the alternative tool for full panchang or tithi data, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 implied rather than explicit: the statement that the 11 karanas have qualities 'for timing activities' suggests this tool is for karana-based timing, and the 'date and location' phrase defines the invocation context. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of sibling tools like divine_get_panchang or divine_get_tithi.

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 description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the calculation method ('KP ayanamsha and unequal house system') and the output content ('cuspal positions with sign, star, and sub divisions'). No contradictions with annotations exist, but it does not go beyond these basics.

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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. The core action and target are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds necessary technical context about the return content and calculation system. Every sentence earns its place.

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 chart tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what is returned and the astrological system used, which is enough to guide invocation. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but this does not severely hinder completeness given the clear tool name and purpose.

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 top-level parameter schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only says 'for a birth chart' and does not explain the required params field or its nested birth details. Although the nested KundliInput schema has rich descriptions, the tool description itself adds little parameter-level semantic value.

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 retrieves 'KP Cuspal chart data' and specifies it returns cuspal positions with sign, star, and sub divisions. This is a specific verb-resource combination that conveys the core function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely named siblings like divine_get_kp_cuspal_sub or divine_get_kp_cuspal_significator, so it falls short of full 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 phrase 'for a birth chart' gives clear context that this tool applies to birth chart data, implying the general use case. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related KP cuspal siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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 no contradiction exists. The description adds behavioral context by describing the output as a 'comprehensive table' with house significations as star lord and sub lord, giving a clear sense of the response shape.

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 succinct sentences: the first names the resource, the second defines its content and significance. There is no filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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

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

With a richly documented input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation among the many KP sibling tools, though the specialized name and content description mitigate this.

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 birth details and node_type already fully documented. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 names a specific resource, 'KP Planetary-Cuspal Significator Table', and elaborates its function: 'showing which houses each planet signifies as star lord and sub lord'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling KP tools like divine_get_kp_cuspal or divine_get_kp_planetary_sub.

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 phrase 'Core of KP prediction methodology' implies usage for KP predictions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The large sibling list makes this more ambiguous than necessary.

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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is organized by house cusp and explains the role of sub lords in KP predictions, but it does not disclose response structure, pagination, or any edge cases. This is adequate given the strong annotation coverage but not rich.

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 short sentences plus a one-line summary, with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information about scope, output content, or interpretational value, with 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 read-only, idempotent lookup tool with a detailed input schema and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the output granularity (all house cusps), and the purpose. A minor gap is that it does not differentiate among the closely related KP cuspal tools, but that is a usage-guidance concern rather than a completeness gap for invoking 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 tool description says nothing about the birth-detail parameters, but the nested KundliInput schema provides detailed descriptions for every field (day, month, year, hour, min, lat, lon, etc.). Since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden, the tool description does not need to repeat it; the single 'params' argument is also obvious from the schema structure.

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-resource pair, 'Get KP Cuspal Sub Lords for all house cusps,' and clarifies that the tool returns the sub lord of each house cusp, which is a concrete deliverable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with similar KP siblings like divine_get_kp_cuspal or divine_get_kp_cuspal_significator, so it stops short of full 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many related KP tools (e.g., kp_cuspal_significator, kp_planetary_sub, kp_cuspal). The phrase 'KP-based predictions' hints at a general use case but provides no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the calculation system (KP ayanamsha) and the exact output components (sign lord, star lord, sub lord), which is not redundant 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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the most decision-relevant technical detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description does not need to repeat structured information. It covers the key semantic differentiator (KP ayanamsha and lord levels), and the remaining gaps are mostly explicit sibling-routing guidance, which is more a usage-guideline concern.

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 every parameter, including the nested birth-detail fields, has an example and description. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries that burden, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get KP Planetary Positions for a birth chart'. It further clarifies the distinguishing detail—KP ayanamsha with sign lord, star lord, and sub lord—so it is clearly separable from generic planetary position tools like divine_get_planetary_positions.

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 a clear context: this is for birth charts and uses the KP system. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the KP terminology and lord-level outputs imply the intended use case well enough for an agent to route correctly among similar 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?

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful output-content context (star lord and sub lord) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or response pagination. It does not contradict 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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds output detail and use context. Everything earns its place.

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 return values are presumably documented there, so the description does not need to detail them further. The description, combined with the well-covered input schema and rich annotations, gives an agent sufficient information to call the tool correctly. It could be more explicit about how this differs from nearby KP siblings, but overall it is complete enough.

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 every parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics; it only states the overall output. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the full parameter meaning.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Get KP Planetary Sub Lords') and specifies scope ('for all planets'). It also clarifies the actual output ('star lord and sub lord'), which distinguishes it from position-focused siblings like divine_get_kp_planetary_positions, though it does not explicitly name 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 description implies usage for KP-based event prediction ('essential for KP-based event prediction'), giving a clear context. However, it offers no exclusions, prerequites, or guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as divine_get_kp_cuspal_sub or divine_get_sub_planet_positions.

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 meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that the analysis is based on the birth Ascendant, that transit time is optional, and that chart styling can be customized. No contradiction with annotations is 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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains what the analysis shows, and finally notes optional settings. Each sentence earns its place and the structure is easy 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?

Given the tool's 14 parameters, the description is appropriately complete because the input schema documents every parameter and an output schema exists. The description explains the essential purpose, the Ascendant-based analysis, and optional transit time/styling. It could name a sibling like divine_get_kundli_transit_moon for extra routing clarity, but that is not essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the optional transit time components and chart styling settings, and by explaining that the birth details are used to determine the Ascendant from which transits are analyzed. This semantic framing goes beyond the individual 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get transit analysis from the Ascendant (Lagna) on a chosen transit date.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like divine_get_kundli_transit_moon by anchoring the analysis to the birth Ascendant rather than the Moon. The second sentence reinforces the scope by describing what the output covers.

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 context: use this when you want planetary transit effects analyzed from the birth Ascendant on a given date. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the Ascendant-specific framing is enough to route an agent correctly among the many transit-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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'Shows planetary transits' aligns with read-only behavior and adds that transit time and chart styling are optional, but it does not disclose additional behavioral nuances such as error conditions or response format.

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-load the core purpose and then add only relevant context: the Moon-sign reference, the most-common-usage note, and optional time/chart settings. 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?

Given the rich input schema with all parameters documented, explicit annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential use case and optional settings. An agent can call the tool correctly by combining the schema with this description; no critical behavioral information 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%, with each of the 14 parameters individually described. The description's mention of optional transit time and chart styling adds a useful conceptual grouping but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 the specific operation ('Get transit analysis') and the resource/reference frame ('from the birth Moon sign') on a chosen transit date, which clearly distinguishes it from ascendant-based transit tools like divine_get_kundli_transit_ascendant. The phrase 'the most commonly used transit reference in Vedic astrology' further pins down the tool's scope.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for Moon-sign transit analysis on a chosen date, and notes that this reference is the most commonly used in Vedic astrology. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient to infer when this tool applies.

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 the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). Beyond those, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: 'Not every planet pair is valid; the API lists the valid antardashas on mismatch'. This tells the agent that invalid input yields a fallback payload rather than an error, which is non-obvious and not carried in the annotations. The 'no birth data needed' caveat is additional useful context. 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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose plus the key no-birth-data caveat. The short second paragraph adds scope and the mismatch behavior in two brief sentences. There is minor redundancy — 'textual Lal Kitab interpretation' and 'Returns the Lal Kitab reading' say nearly the same thing — but overall the description is tight 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?

This is a simple read-only retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage, a full set of safety annotations, and an output schema (so return format is documented elsewhere). The description covers the two non-obvious facts an agent must know: no birth data required, and invalid pairs return the valid option list rather than failing. The only real gap is the lack of explicit wiring to the sibling divine_get_lal_kitab_mahadasha_content, but overall the tool is well specified for its complexity.

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 all three parameters. The antar_dasha schema description already covers the mismatch behavior ('on a mismatch the API replies with the valid options'), so the tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. The description's 'named period pair' phrasing adds nothing the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get textual Lal Kitab interpretation of a Mahadasha-Antardasha combination'. The phrase 'no birth data needed' usefully narrows scope, distinguishing this from general dasha tools like divine_get_antar_dasha_analysis. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling divine_get_lal_kitab_mahadasha_content, leaving the agent to infer the difference (antardasha pair vs. single mahadasha) from the name alone.

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 when to use it — when you want a period-pair reading without birth data — but gives no explicit routing. It does not mention alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as preferring divine_get_lal_kitab_mahadasha_content for a single mahadasha interpretation. The mismatch note is behavioral guidance, not usage guidance. This meets the minimum but leaves sibling differentiation to inference.

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, so the description only needs to add output context. It does add that the result contains planet combinations and Lal Kitab interpretation, but it discloses no operational traits such as response formatting, language handling, or calculation scope. 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 two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler 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?

The input and output schemas cover invocation and return structure, and the description states the resource and return concept. However, with roughly a hundred sibling tools, the lack of usage boundaries or selection guidance leaves the description incomplete for an agent deciding between similar Lal Kitab 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 top-level 'params' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description only says 'for a birth chart.' It does not explain which birth details are required or how they map to the conjunction computation, so the prose fails to compensate for the low 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get Lal Kitab planetary conjunctions for a birth chart.' It also clarifies the output as 'planet combinations present in the chart and their Lal Kitab interpretation,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like planetary positions or planet analysis.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling Lal Kitab tools. The phrase 'for a birth chart' gives minimal context, but no alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria are mentioned.

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, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful output context (35-year cycle, ruling planet) but does not mention any limitations, error conditions, or input requirements beyond general 'birth chart'.

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 short sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds concrete output detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations and an output schema, the description omits usage selection guidance among a large set of dasha-related sibling tools and does not clarify the input contract. An agent would need to inspect the schema and sibling names to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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 schema description coverage at 0% at the top level, the description should compensate by explaining parameter requirements, but it provides none. It only refers to 'a birth chart' without detailing the required birth details (date, time, place, coordinates, timezone), leaving the agent dependent entirely on 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 retrieves Lal Kitab dasha periods and specifies the 35-year cycle with ruling planet per period. This is specific enough to distinguish from generic dasha tools, though it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like divine_get_lal_kitab_mahadasha_content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling dasha tools (vimshottari, yogini, kaal_chakra, lal_kitab_mahadasha_content, etc.). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by specifying the output: 'karmic debts identified in the chart per Lal Kitab, such as self, mother, relative or unborn debts.' This goes beyond the annotations by describing the nature of results.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently states what the tool returns. No filler or redundancy.

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