Vedic Wheel: North Indian (SVG)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful cost signal (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint, but omits the notable behavioral fact that format defaults to 'json' rather than 'svg' for a rendering tool, and says nothing about size limits or what the returned payload contains.

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?

Two sentences plus compact bracketed metadata, front-loaded with the layout distinction. No filler; every line (group, endpoint, cost) carries operational value, though the metadata could be visually separated from prose.

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?

Output schema, annotations, and the extensive input schema carry most of the burden, so the short description is close to sufficient. What is missing for a render tool is an explicit statement of what is returned (SVG markup vs JSON) and the default format, which is the one thing an agent would most want to know before calling.

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 100% and the birth-data and options objects are documented in exceptional detail (timezone offsets, house-system letters, theme CSS variables), so the description need not repeat any of it. It stays silent on parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level; a brief nod to the options block would have earned a 5.

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 identifies the specific artifact - a North Indian diamond-layout Vedic wheel with 12 fixed positions and signs rotating by ascendant - which meaningfully distinguishes it from the sibling astroway_render_wheel_vedic_east/_south/_western. It never states the verb (render/generate an SVG image) or that the result is a graphic, leaving that to the title and tool name.

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?

Describing the layout convention implicitly tells an agent to pick this variant when a North Indian chart is wanted, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no reference to the east/south/western alternatives by name. 'Standard BPHS rendering' hints at the tradition but does not guide selection.

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