Jaimini: Padas (Bhava/Surya/Chandra/Graha Arudhas)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent / non-destructive / closed-world, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the cost (20 credits, Tier 2), the endpoint, the group, and the specific computation rule that determines the output. It does not discuss determinism across ayanamsa settings, which would have pushed it higher.

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 first sentence front-loads the payload (the exact arudha categories) and the second adds the classical basis; nothing is padded. The bracketed metadata block is slightly mechanical overhead but the cost and required-input lines earn their place.

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-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the safety profile is in annotations. However, for a 13-parameter, credit-costing computation, the description says nothing about how sidereal school or house system change the padas, nor about defaults beyond what the schema spells out — leaving meaningful gaps for a specialized Vedic endpoint.

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 needs to compensate and instead only restates the required list (date, time, latitude, longitude), which the schema's required array already declares. The astrologically decisive knobs — houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId, cosmogram — are never explained in terms of their effect on the pada calculation.

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 states precisely what the tool produces: the full canonical Arudha set (A1..A12 Bhava, S1..S12 Surya, M1..M12 Chandra, plus Graha Arudhas) and names the classical rule applied (1/7-trim per BPHS Adhyaya 26.4). The resource is unambiguous, but it never points at the closely related siblings (astroway_vedic_jaimini_upapada, astroway_vedic_jaimini_karakas), so an agent must infer the split itself.

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: the required inputs are listed, which signals that a birth moment and place are needed, so an agent knows when the tool is applicable. There is no statement of when to prefer it over upapada/karakas/jaimini_yogas, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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