Varshaphal

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds a reference to the full output and error contract, which gives users a path to understand error behavior. No contradiction exists between description and annotations, but it doesn't go much beyond the annotations for behavioral details.

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 like WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH. It is informative without being verbose, and the link to the full contract avoids embedding unnecessary details. The formatting enhances readability and scannability.

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 complexity of the tool (nested birth object, multiple output fields), the description covers the essential context: what it computes, recommended prerequisites, key output concepts, and a link to the full contract. The presence of an output schema means return values are handled separately, and the description sufficiently bridges the tool's purpose and usage.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra clarity by emphasizing that 'year' is the true Gregorian return year and not an age, and it provides workflow context. This modest additional guidance raises the 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 explicitly states the tool computes the annual Tajika-style solar return and lists the specific outputs (Muntha, Pancha Adhikari, Tajika aspects, varshaphal positions). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dasha and transits in the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly specifies when to use this tool by recommending a prerequisite (asterwise_get_natal_chart), and clarifies the input contract (supply the true Gregorian return year, not age). It also explicitly warns against confusion with dasha and transit tools, providing clear alternative guidance.

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