Jaimini: Argala / Virodhargala scan

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 and nothing in the description contradicts it. The appended metadata adds genuinely useful behaviour context (POST endpoint, 20 credits Tier 2 cost, required fields). It does not explain computation assumptions, such as how house systems or ayanamsa affect the Argala result, which matters for a technical Jyotish calculation.

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 dense sentences that front-load the technique and scope, followed by a compact bracketed metadata block. Every line carries information; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 return values need not be explained, and the cost/endpoint block helps with invocation. But for a 13-parameter tool with a quarter of its parameters undocumented and no guidance on defaults or alternatives, the description leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 23% schema description coverage, the description needs to carry weight, and it does not. It restates the four required fields and mentions nothing about the opaque parameters an agent will actually stumble on: the single-letter houseSystem enum (P, K, R, C...), ayanamsaId, zodiacType, cosmogram, and the timezone vs timezoneOffset interaction.

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 the specific Jaimini technique (Argala / Virodhargala), the scope (all 12 houses), the source houses for each, and the outputs (net influence, dominant-over metric). That is far more specific than a tautology. It stops short of distinguishing this from closely related siblings such as astroway_vedic_jaimini_aspects or astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_rasi, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 statement of when to reach for this scan versus the other Jaimini tools, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that it needs a birth moment and place to compute a chart). The only usage-flavoured content is the required-parameter list, which an agent would already get from the schema.

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