Chart Strength

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the baseline is low. The description adds context about the workflow (recommended order) and clarifies that it reads 'from BirthData', which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects or lack thereof beyond the annotations, so a small gap remains.

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?

Despite being long, the description is highly structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and front-loads the purpose. No wasted words; each sentence carries distinct value, and the flow guides the reader efficiently.

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?

The description is self-contained and thorough: it states what the tool returns, how it fits in a larger workflow, differentiates it from similar tools, and even points to a full documentation URL. Given the complexity (multiple bala types, vargas, karaka maps), this is more than sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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% – every parameter and subfield is described. The description goes beyond the schema, e.g., explaining that omitting time uses a sunrise chart and not to pass '00:00' for unknown, and giving default Ayanamsa as 'lahiri' with a recommendation. This adds practical meaning that helps invoke the tool correctly.

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 explicitly states what the tool does: 'Aggregates Shadbala, Bhavbala, Vimshopaka...' and is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like asterwise_get_yogas and asterwise_get_ashtakavarga. The verb 'Aggregates' plus the specific resource (BirthData) and the list of outputs make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit before/after recommendations: 'BEFORE: RECOMMENDED — asterwise_get_natal_chart' and 'AFTER: asterwise_get_yogas — optional'. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly names alternatives and what they are, so when-to-use and when-not-to-use are crystal clear.

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