Jaimini: Chara Karakas (detailed)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description contributes real operational context the annotations cannot: the credit cost (20, Tier 2), the HTTP endpoint, and the required parameter set. It adds nothing about output shape, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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 two-sentence core is tight and front-loaded, with the differentiator stated before the metadata block. The bracketed group/endpoint/required/cost lines are boilerplate but compact and separately skimmable.

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?

For a 13-parameter Vedic compute call with 23% schema coverage, the description leaves meaningful gaps: an agent cannot tell from it whether zodiacType or houseSystem should be set for a Jaimini reading, or what defaults apply. The output schema and annotations relieve the burden on return values and safety, which keeps this at the minimum-viable level rather than worse.

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 coverage is only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The '[Required: date, time, latitude, longitude]' line merely restates the schema's required array, and nine optional parameters that materially change the result (zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, cosmogram, city, name) get no explanation anywhere.

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 resource precisely (chara karaka ranking) and the distinguishing feature (Atmakaraka/Darakaraka highlighted), then explicitly contrasts it with the sibling `/karakas` endpoint. An agent can pick between the two Jaimini karaka tools without opening either schema.

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?

States the intended use case ("focused output for AK/DK-driven analyses") and names the alternative endpoint it duplicates algorithmically, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use for full karaka tables' exclusion, but the direction is unambiguous.

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