Jaimini: Aspects (Rasi + Graha drishti)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds value on top: the POST endpoint, the four required inputs, and a concrete cost of 20 credits at Tier 2, which is decision-relevant for an agent budgeting calls. It does not describe response shape, but an output schema exists, so that burden is covered elsewhere.

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 front-loaded prose sentences deliver the definition and the decomposition, followed by compact bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, required inputs and cost. No filler, though the bracketed block partially duplicates schema information (required list).

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?

Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and the core inputs are conventional. However, for a 13-parameter tool with several cryptic option fields (houseSystem letters, cosmogram, ayanamsaId as number-or-null), the description leaves an agent guessing which knobs actually matter for Jaimini aspects.

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 is expected to compensate — yet it only restates the four required fields already listed in the schema's `required` array. It says nothing about ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId, zodiacType, the 25-value single-letter houseSystem enum, or the cosmogram flag, all of which are semantically opaque without help.

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?

Names the specific resource ('Combined Jaimini aspects') and decomposes it into its two constituents, rasi drishti (sign-aspect table) and graha drishti (per-planet Parashari aspects). It also states it is an aggregate of the `/drishti-rasi` and `/drishti-graha` endpoints, which maps directly onto the sibling tools astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_rasi and astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_graha.

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?

'Convenience aggregate of /drishti-rasi and /drishti-graha' gives a clear selection signal: use this when both drishti sets are wanted in one call. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer the two narrower siblings instead (e.g. to save credits), so a small inference is left to the agent.

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