divine_get_ascendant_report

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.