divine_get_sudarshana_chakra

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the concentric overlay and year-by-year prediction output. No contradictions with annotations. It doesn't add auth or rate-limit context, but the overlay explanation adds genuine value beyond 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 tight sentences that front-load the purpose ('Get Sudarshana Chakra for a birth chart') before the overlay detail. No filler or wasted words. The content is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 an output schema present and a well-documented nested input schema, the description only needs to convey what the tool produces and when it applies. It explains the overlay mechanics and year-by-year predictions. The main gap is not clarifying what distinguishes Sudarshana Chakra from sibling chart tools, but for a read-only predictive tool this is a minor omission.

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 top-level schema shows 0% description coverage, but the nested KundliInput $defs documents all 13 birth fields with meaningful examples (e.g., day '24', hour in 24h format, tzone offset). The schema carries the heavy lifting for parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable since the schema is rich.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Get Sudarshana Chakra for a birth chart') and explains what the tool does (overlays Lagna, Moon, and Sun charts for year-by-year prediction). However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling chart tools (e.g., divine_get_ghata_chakra, divine_get_prasthara_chakra), so an agent can't tell what makes this unique among the ~130 siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated. Given the huge sibling list, an agent has no signal about when Sudarshana Chakra is the appropriate choice over other chart/prediction tools.

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