compute_karakas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it explains the ranking rule, the meaning of highest/lowest karakas, and the 7- vs 8-karaka distinction. It stops short of discussing edge cases such as degree ties or validation errors, but the core deterministic behavior is clearly stated.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the ranking rule and scheme options, and every clause earns its place.

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 computation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, algorithm, sidereal basis, and scheme selection. It does not explicitly describe the return format or error behavior when rahu is omitted for scheme 8, but the schema marks rahu as required for that case, so the gap is minor.

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 every parameter already has its meaning and range documented. The description adds algorithmic context ('ranks planets by degrees within their current sign') but does not introduce parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Compute'), a precise resource ('Jaimini Chara Karaka assignments'), and the exact algorithm (ranking by degrees within sign). It clearly differentiates this tool from the astrological siblings by focusing on karaka significators rather than charts, dashas, or transits.

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 the tool's use case by stating it computes Jaimini Chara Karaka assignments and supports 7- or 8-karaka schemes. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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