divine_get_vargottama_planets

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 tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that vargottama is a strength-giving placement and describing the output content. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or default language behavior, which could be expected in a more complete description.

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 exactly two sentences, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function, and the second sentence details the output and its astrological significance. There is no redundant or filler text; every word adds value.

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 is moderately complex, requiring a full birth chart with numerous input fields, but the description omits any guidance on the input requirements. An output schema exists and the description outlines the output content, so return values are covered. However, the description does not mention that the tool needs complete birth details (time, place, coordinates), which is critical for the agent to successfully invoke it. Given the many sibling tools with similar inputs, this omission leaves an ambiguity that could lead to incorrect calls.

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 description provides zero guidance on the input parameters. The schema shows a single complex parameter `params` (a KundliInput object with 11 fields), but the description never mentions that a full birth chart is required, nor does it explain the purpose of fields like full_name, lat, lon, or tzone. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate for the complexity of the input, leaving the agent to piece together requirements solely from the field descriptions in the schema, which are minimal.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Get the vargottama planets for a birth chart.' It then specifies exactly what is returned (D1 and D9 signs plus a vargottama flag) and explains the astrological concept. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the many sibling tools, which focus on other aspects like planetary positions or dasha 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 by naming the specific concept (vargottama planets), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites. It offers no 'use this when...' guidance or exclusions. The naming alone suggests its purpose, so usage is implied but not clearly stated.

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