Prashna Chart

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) but does not add any extra behavioral context such as side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements. Since annotations already cover the key traits, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential functionality without unnecessary detail or fluff. It is highly concise and easy to parse.

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 gives a basic idea of what the tool does but lacks context about the nature of Prashna (horary astrology) or any specifics about the expected output format. It is adequate for a simple task but not comprehensive given the complex nested input and output schema.

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 description maps the main parameters (date, time, place, keyword) to meaningful roles, but it omits mention of ayanamsa and response_format, which are present in the schema. It provides partial semantic coverage but not full parameter explanation.

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 action (casting a Prashna chart) and the key inputs (date, time, place, keyword) and outputs (houses, Moon diagnostics, verdict, cusps). It is slightly generic but sufficient for a high-level understanding.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., natal, KP, compatibility). It does not differentiate use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.

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