Special Ascendants

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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds major behavioral context: it calls upstream endpoints sequentially, merges payloads, and returns a top-level wrapper with nested data fields rather than a flat root. WARNING about nested .data fields and a link to the full output/error contract go well beyond what annotations provide.

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 labeled WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE sections, and every sentence carries unique information. The key facts are scoped the composite call and output shape, are presented immediately, and the sibling disambiguation is efficient without verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's composite nature, the readOnly/idempotent annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all important invocation concerns: prerequisite call, post-tool behavior, nested output shape, and to full contract documentation. The agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and parse its response.

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%, so the schema already fully documents birth fields, response_format, defaults, constraints, enums, and formats. The description only refers to 'one BirthData' and does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately identifies this as a composite tool that calls the atmakaraka and ishta-devata endpoints and merges their payloads into top-level atmakaraka and ishta_devata objects for one BirthData. It explicitly contrasts it with asterwise_get_natal_chart and asterwise_get_char_dasha, which separates it from a large sibling set.

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?

It provides a WORKFLOW section naming asterwise_get_natal_chart as a recommended prerequisite and states that there is no AFTER step, giving an agent an explicit sequence. The DO NOT CONFUSE section names two alternatives and explains why each is not appropriate, satisfying both the 'when to use' and 'when-not-to-use' requirements.

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