divine_get_lal_kitab_planetary_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral disclosure beyond restating that it returns positions; it does not mention response characteristics, edge cases, or any system-specific 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 compact and front-loaded with the action and system name. It is slightly redundant—'Get Lal Kitab planetary positions' and 'Returns planet placements per the Lal Kitab system' say essentially the same thing—but it is still concise and free of filler.

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 read-only data-return tool, the combination of annotations, detailed input schema, and output schema covers most invocation needs. The description correctly communicates the Lal Kitab system and natal birth-chart scope. It could be more complete by explicitly naming sibling alternatives such as the generic planetary positions or Lal Kitab varshphal planetary positions, but the main selection criteria are present.

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 description itself does not explain parameters, and the top-level `params` property has no description. However, the nested `KundliInput` schema is rich, with descriptions and examples for every field, so agents still get strong parameter guidance from the schema. The description adds only the birth-chart framing already present in `KundliInput`.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get Lal Kitab planetary positions for a birth chart.' It also says the tool returns 'planet placements per the Lal Kitab system,' which distinguishes it from the generic Vedic `divine_get_planetary_positions` and from annual varshphal planetary position 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 you need Lal Kitab planetary positions for a natal chart, and frames it as 'the foundation for Lal Kitab analysis and remedies.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this with the many sibling planetary-position tools (Vedic, KP, Jaimini, or Lal Kitab Varshphal).

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