Ashtakavarga: Prastara (contributor table)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context beyond them: the POST endpoint, the four required inputs, and a cost of 20 credits (Tier 2), which is the kind of billing/limit signal an agent cannot get from annotations. It does not mention auth or failure modes, but the credit cost disclosure is substantive.

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 first sentence is dense but front-loaded with the key structural facts. The second sentence ('The same table /ashtakavarga sums.') is malformed and conveys nothing usable, and the bracketed metadata block is boilerplate rather than description. Roughly half the prose earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return structure need not be explained, and the description's table summary is adequate context. However, for a 13-parameter computed astrology tool with 23% schema coverage, the absence of any guidance on the optional configuration parameters (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem) leaves real gaps for correct invocation. Completeness is good on output framing but incomplete on input configuration.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. It lists only the four required field names (date, time, latitude, longitude) with no format, range or interpretation guidance, and completely omits nine optionals including ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, city and name, several of which materially change the computed table.

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 names a specific artefact — an 8x12 Prastara table per planet showing which contributor (seven planets plus lagna) gives a bindu in which sign, with row/column totals and Sarvashtakavarga. That is far more specific than the title alone and lets an agent distinguish this contributor-matrix tool from the plain ashtakavarga sums. The closing fragment 'The same table /ashtakavarga sums' is garbled and blunts the differentiation slightly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as the sibling ashtakavarga or shodhana tool. The cryptic 'The same table /ashtakavarga sums' gesture toward a related sibling but does not state a selection condition. An agent must infer the routing itself.

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