Gochar

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds practical behavioral notes such as defaulting target_date to today and handling of birth time '00:00' without unknown-time detection. However, it does not elaborate on rate limits or runtime characteristics, but the provided context is sufficient given the read-only annotation.

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 clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. While it is somewhat lengthy, each section serves a distinct purpose and the formatting aids readability, though it could be slightly more compact without losing essential disambiguation.

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 covers the tool's core functionality, provides workflow context, disambiguates from close sibling tools, and points to a full output/error contract for deeper details. Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested birth object, enums), the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though the output format could be slightly more detailed.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra clarity via the global contract note for birth data, specifically addressing the acceptance of '00:00' as a literal time, which supplements the schema's warning about not using it for unknown times. This added nuance justifies a score above baseline.

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 Gochar against the natal Moon and Lagna, and enumerates specific outputs (per-planet transit longitudes, houses, AVK scores, vedha flags, roll-up summary). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools via the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, making its 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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance through WORKFLOW and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH sections, recommending natal chart as a prerequisite and dasha transits as a follow-up. It also specifies what this tool is not for (ingress/station tables, dasha-lord correlation), leaving no ambiguity about its appropriate use case.

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