divine_get_varshphal_yogas

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 safety profile is well covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what the output contains, whether specific birth details are validated, or any limitations on the varshphal_year. It merely restates the parameters and the purpose, adding little value beyond the structured data.

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, which is concise. However, it lacks any structural aids like a summary of when to use or what makes this distinct from siblings. The phrase 'Varshphal Yogas (annual chart)' is slightly misleading and could confuse an agent into thinking it returns the full chart rather than the yogas, reducing overall clarity despite its brevity.

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 huge sibling list and the existence of a dedicated 'divine_get_yogas' tool plus many other varshphal tools, this description is not complete enough to help an agent choose correctly. It doesn't explain that this is specifically about the yogas computed for the annual Varshphal chart, nor does it mention any nuances such as the language parameter or the fact that both a birth data object and a varshphal_year are required. The output schema covers the return format, but the selection context is missing.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (birth details and varshphal_year). The description only paraphrases these inputs ('given year and birth data') without adding format, constraints, or interaction details. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but it doesn't enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('Varshphal Yogas') along with the inputs ('given year and birth data'). It is more specific than a mere restatement of the name, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling varshphal tools or the general 'divine_get_yogas' tool. The parenthetical '(annual chart)' is slightly ambiguous because Yogas are a specific component of the annual chart, not the chart itself.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous related siblings (e.g., divine_get_yogas, divine_get_varshphal_horoscope_chart, divine_get_varshphal_muntha). There are no statements about prerequisites (beyond what is in the schema) or conditions that would make this tool the correct choice. Usage is only implied by the tool name and a generic 'for the given year and birth data'.

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