Ashtakavarga

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. Description adds that it calculates bindus and a table, includes group and cost metadata, and provides an example request body. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is concise: one functional sentence, two lines of metadata, and an example. No redundant information. Well front-loaded.

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 Ashtakavarga and 11 parameters with no output schema, the description provides only basic function and an example. It lacks detail on output format and explanation of all parameters, leaving the agent with incomplete context for invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides an example with date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude but does not explain other parameters like houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, etc. Even the example lacks explanation for many optional parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calculates the Ashtakavarga benefic point table with individual bindus and total Sarvashtakavarga for a Vedic chart. It uses specific verb 'calculate' and resource 'Ashtakavarga benefic point table', and no sibling tool has 'ashtakavarga' in name, distinguishing it effectively.

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 implies usage for calculating Ashtakavarga in a Vedic chart but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied by the tool's specificity.

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