divine_get_grah_gochar

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.