Calculate Gochar (Transits)

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that transits are computed relative to natal Moon and Lagna, includes Sade Sati/Dhaiya, and the output format is JSON for report tools. This provides useful operational details without contradiction. The readOnlyHint is consistent with 'compute' implying no mutations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with the output relevance. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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 complexity of astrological transits, the description covers the key elements: what is computed, input requirements, and output destination. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by noting that the JSON is 'accepted by the report tools,' which provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand its role. However, more detail on the output structure could improve completeness.

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%, so the description does not need to explain parameters in detail. However, it adds value by specifying that the kundali parameter must be 'exactly as returned by the calculate_kundali tool,' which is a crucial constraint not in the schema. For on_date, it restates the schema's default (today). This additional context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool computes gochar (planetary transits) relative to natal Moon and Lagna, plus Saturn Sade Sati/Dhaiya for a given date. The verb 'compute' and resource 'gochar' are specific. The mention of 'returns gochar JSON accepted by report tools' further clarifies its role. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calculate_dasha or calculate_kundali, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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 implies usage when transit calculations are needed and specifies the required input (Kundali from calculate_kundali). It also notes that the output is used by report tools. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives (e.g., using calculate_dasha for dashas instead of transits). The context is implied but not explicit.

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