Divisional Chart

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds detail about local enum enforcement (Pydantic) which is a mild behavioral note. No contradictions with the annotations are present, and the description does not introduce side effects or unexpected behavior.

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 organized into clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and avoids repetition. While it is somewhat verbose, the structure makes it easy to scan, and every sentence adds useful context. It is concise enough for an API description without being terse.

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 includes the full output/error contract URL, explains the optional chart_type and the default behavior of returing all 16 charts, and provides workflow context. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope, prerequisites, and output format without ambiguity.

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% description coverage for all parameters, including birth, chart_type, and response_format, each with detailed descriptions. The description itself adds little semantic value beyond restating the enum enforcement, so it does not elevate the baseline set by 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?

The description clearly states the tool computes divisional (varga) chart positions from BirthData, and explicitly distinguishes it from the natal chart and chart strength tools. The verb 'Computes' and the resource 'divisional chart positions' are specific, and the distinction from sibling tools leaves no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 direct instructions: pass chart_type for one varga, omit for all sixteen. It also provides a WORKFLOW note recommending the natal chart as a prerequisite, and a 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly naming when not to use this tool versus the natal chart or chart strength. This covers both when to use and when to avoid.

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