Jaimini: Rasi Drishti (sign aspects)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the endpoint, which are genuinely useful beyond structured fields, but says nothing about output shape, pagination, or precision caveats.

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 defining rule is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the metadata block kept to terse bracketed lines. Little waste, though the rule sentence is dense and could be split for readability.

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 tool with low schema coverage, the description gives no guidance on the sidereal/ayanamsa or house-system choices that materially affect the aspect table. It does establish what the output conceptually is, and an output schema exists for the return shape, but the parameter-side gap makes it insufficient.

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 should compensate and does not. It merely restates the four required fields that the schema already marks as required, and leaves ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, city, and name entirely unaddressed.

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 specific artifact — the Jaimini rasi drishti table — and then spells out its actual content (movable/fixed/dual aspect rules), so the agent knows exactly what it will receive. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (astroway_vedic_jaimini_drishti_graha, sign vs. planet aspects), so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to pick this over drishti_graha or jaimini_aspects, and no prerequisite or context is described. The only selection-adjacent information is the required-parameter list, which is structural, not usage guidance.

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