divine_get_lal_kitab_teva

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that it returns the applicable tevas plus explanations. It does not add deeper behavioral caveats such as edge cases or failure modes, but there is no contradiction with the 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?

Two short sentences front-load the main purpose and then summarize the output. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or promotional language.

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 read-only annotations, rich nested input schema, and existing output schema, the description is complete enough for safe invocation. It would be slightly stronger with a parenthetical or an alternative-tool reference to prevent confusion with other Lal Kitab endpoints, but that gap is minor.

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 the required birth-chart parameters, but the input schema's nested KundliInput definition contains detailed descriptions for every field and notes that full birth details are required. The mention of 'a birth chart' gives the agent the conceptual context for the single params object, so the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource precisely: Lal Kitab teva, glossed as 'chart conditions' for a birth chart. It also states the return nature, which distinguishes it from the many other Lal Kitab sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 makes the context clear: use it when you need which Lal Kitab tevas apply to a birth chart and their meanings. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool names, but the domain-specific phrasing is enough to guide selection among the sibling tools.

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