Ashtakavarga

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by stating the exact computed outputs, clarifying that raw matrices are exposed here rather than applied to transits, and linking to the full output/error contract. Minor operational details like rate limits or auth are absent but not critical for a read-only compute tool.

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 well-structured with labeled sections—WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH—and the core function is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is longer than minimal, but the length is justified by the complexity of the tool and the need to disambiguate among a large sibling list.

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 complex Vedic tool with a nested birth object and an output schema, the description provides the essential workflow, input restriction, sibling disambiguation, and a link to the full contract. Return-value details are not duplicated because an output schema exists, so nothing necessary for correct selection and invocation 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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for date, lat, lon, time, ayanamsa, timezone, person_name, and response_format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the high-level contract 'BirthData only,' which is useful but does not deepen per-parameter semantics 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?

Description opens with a precise verb phrase—'Computes full Ashtakavarga bindu matrices, trikona and ekadhipatya reductions, and sarva totals'—clearly identifying both the resource and the computation. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' sections explicitly distinguish it from asterwise_get_chart_strength and asterwise_get_gochar, so an agent can disambiguate without opening the schema.

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 WORKFLOW section names a recommended predecessor (asterwise_get_natal_chart), a natural successor (asterwise_get_gochar), and why the successor uses this tool's output. It also identifies the tools most likely to be confused with this one and explains the selection difference, making when-to-use unambiguous.

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