Jaimini: Atmakaraka rotation (timeline)

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the default 84-year span, the 120-year cap, the endpoint, and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost. What it omits is how the 1°/year rate or the life-event hints are derived, and the span control it mentions is not exposed in the schema, which is a small internal inconsistency.

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 core description is three tight sentences and front-loads the method before the return shape and the span defaults. The bracketed group/endpoint/required/cost block is boilerplate metadata but short and genuinely useful for planning a call, so little is wasted.

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 format needs no further explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. But for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, the description leaves ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone, and timezoneOffset entirely undiscussed, and it references a span setting that does not exist, leaving the agent with gaps on both sides.

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 explains no parameter at all beyond restating the four required inputs. Worse, it advertises a configurable span ('Default span 84 years; capped at 120'), but no span or years property exists in the schema, so the stated control cannot be set.

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 concrete technique (naisargika 1°/year progression of sidereal longitudes) and a concrete output (a timeline of moments when the rank-1 chara karaka changes), so an agent knows what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as astroway_vedic_jaimini_chara_karakas or astroway_vedic_jaimini_atmakaraka_navamsa, so it falls short of a 5.

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 use this tool rather than a sibling, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. The only guidance is implicit: the '[Required: ...]' line and the topic of soul-significator transitions. An agent must infer the fit from the name and topic alone.

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