divine_get_bhav_bala

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.