divine_get_kaal_sarpa_yoga

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns the yoga type and effects, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as calculation method sensitivity or how a non-occurrence is reported. No contradiction exists.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the defining condition, and the return value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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 input schema fully documents parameters, the output schema exists, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description supplies the remaining essential context: what the tool detects, the qualifying condition, and what it returns. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with all birth-detail fields and node_type documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is required because the schema already carries the burden. This matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Check for Kaal Sarpa Yoga in the birth chart.' It also defines the core condition and states that it returns the yoga type and effects, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the many sibling yoga and dosha 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?

Usage is implied clearly by the name and description: use this tool when checking for Kaal Sarpa Yoga. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, even though the sibling list contains several other yoga-related tools that could be confused with it.

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