divine_get_lal_kitab_varshphal_muntha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safe, read-only nature is fully covered by structured metadata. The description adds that it returns the Muntha house and interpretation for the annual chart, which is modest useful context. However, it discloses no additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or limitations.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence clarifies the exact output. Every phrase contributes meaningful information.

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, fully documented input schema, robust annotations, and presence of an output schema, this description is largely complete for a read-only annual-chart tool. It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns. The only notable gap is explicit sibling differentiation among the many similar Lal Kitab/varshphal tools, but that is partially handled by the tool name itself.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage: varshphal_year is documented, and the nested KundliInput fields all have descriptions with examples. The description's reference to 'chosen year' and 'annual chart' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the Lal Kitab varshphal Muntha for a chosen year,' which clearly names the exact tradition, chart type, and artifact. It then states what is returned—'the Muntha house and its interpretation'—which distinguishes it from sibling chart or planetary-position tools. The purpose is unambiguous despite the domain-specific terminology.

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 the use case through 'for a chosen year' and 'annual chart,' but it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when not to use it. With over 100 sibling tools, especially other Lal Kitab and varshphal variants, more explicit selection guidance would be helpful. The current wording provides adequate but not strong guidance.

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