divine_get_varshphal_muntha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what the Muntha represents or any special considerations. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized. While it could include a bit more detail, it remains perfectly concise without being under-specified to the point of harm.

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 an output schema and a well-documented input schema, so the description's job is to provide context. Given the many sibling varshphal tools, this description lacks context about what Muntha specifically is and when it is appropriate to use this tool. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer the use case, which is not ideal for a large toolset.

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 schema provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including varshphal_year and the nested birth details. The description only mentions 'given year and birth data', which adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already states. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'Varshphal Muntha (annual chart)'. It clearly identifies what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from the many sibling varshphal tools, such as divine_get_varshphal_varsha_pravesh or divine_get_varshphal_basic_astro_details. The term 'annual chart' adds some specificity, but a more explicit contrast would earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply says 'Get the Varshphal Muntha' without mentioning when it is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other varshphal tools. Given the extensive sibling list, this is a clear gap that leaves the agent to guess.

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