Jaimini: Karakas (Chara + Naisargika)

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 real value beyond them: the exact computation semantics, the source texts, the credit cost and tier, and the required inputs. It omits that chara karaka ranking is ayanamsa/sidereal-dependent, which would have been a useful behavioral caveat.

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 one dense sentence, followed by compact bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, required fields and cost. Little is wasted, though the source citation chain is longer than an agent needs to select the tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers what is computed, from which sources, at what cost, and what inputs are mandatory. The remaining gap is guidance on the sidereal/ayanamsa configuration that conditions the result and how this differs from its near-duplicate sibling.

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, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond restating that date, time, latitude and longitude are required. It says nothing about ayanamsa (which materially changes chara karaka results), zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone vs timezoneOffset precedence, or the opaque cosmogram flag.

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 concrete computation precisely: chara karakas (8-planet ranking by advancement-in-rasi, Atmakaraka..Darakaraka) plus naisargika karakas (fixed planet→house mapping), with cited sources. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling astroway_vedic_jaimini_chara_karakas, which by name appears to return a subset of the same data.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for Jaimini karaka work, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to the closely related chara_karakas or atmakaraka_rotation siblings. The required-parameters and cost tags give practical context but not selection guidance.

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