divine_get_ghata_chakra

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.