Jaimini: Graha Drishti (planet aspects)

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context beyond the annotations: the exact aspect rules being applied, the credit cost/tier (20 credits, Tier 2), and the endpoint/required-input contract. It stops short of describing pagination or rate limits, but for a deterministic computation call this is solid.

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 definition is front-loaded in the first sentence and the bracketed metadata block is compact and scannable. The required-parameter line is slightly redundant with the schema, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers the computation rules, required inputs, and cost. However, for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, it omits guidance on the many optional configuration parameters, which an agent may need to set correctly for Vedic/Jaimini context.

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 is the place to explain the optional parameters, yet it only restates the four required ones (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema already enforces. It adds nothing about ayanamsaId vs ayanamsa, houseSystem letters, zodiacType, cosmogram, or city/name, leaving the majority of the surface undocumented in both places.

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 exact technique and its computational rules ('Per-planet graha drishti per Parashari rules (BPHS): Mars 4/7/8, Jupiter 5/7/9, Saturn 3/7/10, others 7th'), which is far more specific than a label. It hints at the rasi-drishti sibling ('alongside rasi drishti') but never states the contrast explicitly, so an agent must infer why one would pick this tool over that one.

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?

The phrase 'Used in Jaimini-context dashboards alongside rasi drishti' gives implied usage context and gestures at the sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or a condition that routes the agent between graha drishti and rasi drishti. Required inputs are listed, but prerequisites like ayanamsa or house-system choices are not addressed.

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