divine_get_varshphal_planetary_strengths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as data volume, response format, rate limits, or any caveats. It is consistent with annotations but provides no extra value 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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and inputs without unnecessary words. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 (present), detailed required birth data (fully documented in the schema), and safe read-only operations fully covered by annotations. The minimal description is adequate because the schema and annotations carry the necessary detail. It could briefly clarify what 'strengths' means or how it differs from other Varshphal outputs, but that is not critical.

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%, with every parameter (including varshphal_year and all KundliInput fields) having a description. The main tool description does not add parameter semantics, but the schema already fully documents them, so the baseline 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 a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'Varshphal Planetary Strengths (annual chart)' with inputs 'given year and birth data'. It distinguishes from siblings like planetary positions by naming 'strengths', but does not explicitly differentiate from other Varshphal tools. Clear enough, but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen over the many sibling tools such as divine_get_varshphal_planetary_positions or divine_get_varshphal_horoscope_chart. Given the large sibling set, this is a significant gap.

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