divine_get_planet_analysis

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds behavioral value by specifying that the tool returns an interpretation and listing the analyzed dimensions. Minor limitations such as unsupported planet names are not disclosed, but the schema covers valid values.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the primary action and resource. Every word and phrase contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations declaring read-only/idempotent behavior, the description covers what the tool returns and the scope of analysis. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents the birth-details object and the analysis_planet field with its allowed values. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond saying 'selected planet,' so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get detailed analysis') and resource ('one planet in the birth chart'), and enumerates what the analysis includes: house lordship, aspects, conjunctions, strengths, and effects. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like planetary positions or lal_kitab planet analysis.

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 usage context: use this when a detailed interpretation of a single planet is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling astrological tools, so the agent gets only indirect selection guidance.

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