compute_gochara

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by disclosing the returned categories (verdict, house from natal, raw vedha candidates), the scope of seven grahas, and the exclusion a Ketu. It could go further on how the vedha candidates are used by each school, but the core behavioral profile is clearly conveyed.

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 two sentences with no filler. It leads with the core computation, then adds the output, scope, and caller choice, all without redundancy.

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 pure compute tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states inputs mapping, output content, the excluded grahas, and the meaning of the natal reference. The main gaps are clarifying the semantics of 'school' and 'vedha_table' beyond schema defaults, and they are partially documented in the input schema.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds useful context around natal_reference_sign and the return meaning of vedha, but it does not add substantial per-parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('Compute Gochara'), a specific source (BPHS Ch.29), and clearly distinguishes itself from generic transit tools by noting the seven grahas, natal reference sign, and exclusion of Rahu and Ketu. An agent can tell it apart from compute_transit and search_transits based on this description.

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 gives clear context: use it for Ch.29 Gochara interpretation, against a caller-selected natal reference sign, typically natal Moon or Lagna. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls just short of fully-explicit usage guidance.

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