divine_get_lal_kitab_varshphal_chart

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns an SVG and image, which is a useful behavioral detail for an agent setting expectations. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. It states the core action and the output format without wasting words.

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 description provides the essential purpose and output, and an output schema exists (per context), so return values need not be detailed. However, given the large set of sibling varshphal tools, the description does not help an agent distinguish this chart tool from others, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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% – all parameters, including varshphal_year and the nested KundliInput fields, have descriptive text. The tool description mentions 'chosen year' but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific resource ('Lal Kitab varshphal (annual) chart') and the action ('Generate'), and adds the output format (SVG and image). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling varshphal chart tools, but the name and description are sufficiently specific to identify the tool's purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does; it does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools such as divine_get_varshphal_horoscope_chart or divine_get_lal_kitab_varshphal_planetary_positions, leaving the agent without routing information.

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