divine_get_lal_kitab_house_position

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only that the tool returns per-house planet placements, which is informative but does not disclose extra behavioral traits such as response shape, rate limits, or input validation behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the result. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail, and it stays appropriately compact.

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 rich annotations and existing output/input schemas, the core operation is described. However, with more than a hundred sibling tools, the lack of an explicit boundary leaves some selection ambiguity, so the description is minimally complete rather than fully self-sufficient.

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 0% and the tool description does not compensate: it mentions only 'birth chart' and gives no guidance on the required birth details or the language parameter. The nested KundliInput schema contains descriptions, but the tool description itself adds almost no parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get Lal Kitab house positions') and clearly states the return value: which planets occupy each of the 12 houses. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many Lal Kitab siblings such as divine_get_lal_kitab_planetary_positions or divine_get_lal_kitab_horoscope_chart, 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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this when it needs Lal Kitab house positions for a birth chart. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative sibling tools are better for related queries, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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