divine_get_nav_pancham_yoga

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., no mention of side effects, rate limits, or specific data needs beyond the schema). It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 clear sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and object; the second adds meaningful detail on the houses and outcomes. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool has a complex input schema with 22+ required fields, but the description does not mention that both persons' birth information is mandatory, nor any hints about the response format (output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation). For an agent to call this correctly, the input requirements are critical and are not covered here.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining what inputs are needed. It only mentions 'two charts' and 'two partners' without specifying that full birth details (date, time, place, timezone) are required for both persons, nor the field formats. The schema itself contains per-field descriptions but the tool description does not surface them.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Nav Pancham Yoga compatibility analysis') between two charts. The second sentence details exactly what is analyzed (5th/9th house trine relationship) and what it indicates (fortune, mutual support, harmony), which clearly distinguishes it from generic astrology or other matching tools like divine_get_ashtakoot_milan.

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?

Implies usage context by stating it analyzes the 5th/9th house relationship for compatibility, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as divine_get_dashakoot_milan or divine_get_matching_manglik. There are no exclusions or alternative-tool references.

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