divine_get_varshphal_tajika_aspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping context of 'annual chart' and 'given year', which is helpful but does not reveal additional behaviors beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the specific resource name and includes only the necessary input context. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making it highly efficient.

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 a full input schema and an output schema present, the description is mostly adequate for a read-only retrieval. However, it does not explain what a 'Tajika Aspect' is or how it differs from other Varshphal tools such as muntha, yogas, or sahams, leaving some selection ambiguity among siblings.

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 coverage is 100%: both top-level parameters (varshphal_year and params) and every nested KundliInput field have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource, 'Varshphal Tajika Aspect', and states the inputs (year and birth data). It identifies a distinct subtype among many Varshphal sibling tools, though it never defines 'Tajika Aspect' or explicitly contrasts it with siblings, so it is not 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many Varshphal siblings; the description only restates the inputs. There are no exclusions, conditions, or named alternatives, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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