Vedic Chart

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does add something useful: the calculation is pinned to explicit Lahiri / whole-sign / mean-node / 365.2425-day conventions, which tells the agent results are not configurable. It says nothing about failure modes, how lunar dates are validated, or precision of the dasha output.

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 dense sentence that leads with the calculation and ends with the conventions, with no filler. It is efficient, though the packed enumeration of four conventions is hard to parse at a glance.

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?

For a 22-parameter, conditional-schema tool with no output schema and near-zero field documentation, one sentence is thin. The description does not cover the required-vs-optional split, the solar/lunar branching rules, or what the D1/D9/dasha payload contains.

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 only 5% across 22 parameters, so the description has to carry almost the whole burden. It does signal that a full birth moment, a timezone and coordinates matter, and that four convention parameters are fixed values. But it does not explain the three mutually exclusive timezone mechanisms, calendar_type solar vs lunar, is_leap_month, question/focus_area/locale, which are the fields most likely to be filled in wrong.

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 concrete verb (计算/calculate) and names the specific outputs: 吠陀 D1, D9 与 Vimshottari mahadasha. The word 吠陀 (Vedic) separates it from the astrology, ziwei, qimen and qizheng chart siblings even without naming them explicitly.

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?

It never says when to choose this Vedic chart versus astrology.calculate_chart, ziwei.calculate_chart or the other chart siblings, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a known birth time for D9 or the dasha sequence. Usage is only implied by the domain word 吠陀.

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