divine_get_varshphal_planetary_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description carries less burden. It adds that this returns annual chart positions, which aligns with the read-only nature, but it does not disclose any unexpected behaviors (e.g., how the annual chart is computed or any limitations). The description is consistent with annotations and contributes minor context beyond 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 with no wasted words, front-loading the specific resource ('Varshphal Planetary Positions') and providing necessary context ('annual chart'). It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the large sibling group and nested input object, the description provides only the basic purpose. It does not explain how this tool differs from other varshphal tools (e.g., strengths, sahams) or from natal planetary positions. However, the schema and output schema cover parameters and return values, so the description is minimally complete but lacks disambiguating context.

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 baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'given year and birth data' only restates the two parameters (varshphal_year and params) already well-documented in the schema. It adds no additional meaning about format, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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 'Get the Varshphal Planetary Positions (annual chart) for the given year and birth data' clearly states the verb and resource, and identifies the annual (Varshphal) context. It distinguishes from other planetary position tools (e.g., divine_get_planetary_positions) by name and 'annual chart', though it does not explicitly contrast with very similar siblings like divine_get_lal_kitab_varshphal_planetary_positions.

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 alternatives. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with siblings such as divine_get_planetary_positions or other varshphal tools. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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