divine_get_jaimini_karakamsha_lagna

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and mutability. The description adds the interpretive meaning ('soul's desire and spiritual inclinations') and underlying calculation, but does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., missing Atmakaraka, D-9 chart availability) or output format. Bar is lower due to strong annotations, yet the description offers limited additional behavioral context.

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 three short sentences with zero redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a brief technical definition and a meaningful interpretation. It is concise yet informative, ideal for an agent scanning multiple tool descriptions.

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 that a full output schema exists and the input schema is exhaustively described, the description correctly focuses on the astrological concept and its significance. It would be marginally improved by noting that this depends on the Atmakaraka in the Navamsha chart and that it requires standard birth data, but those are already implicit in the schema and tool family context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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% – every parameter (including the nested KundliInput fields and node_type) has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description adequately identifies the birth chart input expectation in its first sentence.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Get Karakamsha Lagna from Jaimini astrology for a birth chart.' It further clarifies the exact astronomical basis ('sign occupied by the Atmakaraka in the Navamsha chart') and its interpretation ('Reveals the soul's desire'), making it distinct from sibling Jaimini tools like chara dasha or padas.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other Jyotish tools, nor does it state conditions for use or mention alternatives. However, the term 'Karakamsha Lagna' is a precise concept, and the companion sentence about the soul's desire implies its purpose. It is not misleading, but it leaves the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.