divine_get_bhava_analysis

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.