Jaimini: Upapada Lagna (UL)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behaviour, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the POST endpoint and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which an agent should know before calling. It adds nothing about determinism across ayanamsa choices or error behaviour, and the 'Required' line merely restates the schema.

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 leads with the definition and meaning; the bracketed metadata block is compact and scannable. Every line carries information, though the 'Required' line duplicates structured schema data.

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?

Thirteen parameters with three enum sets and low description coverage make this a complex call, yet the description explains none of the optional inputs and gives no hint of what distinguishes a valid Jaimini calculation. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, but the input side is under-served.

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%, and the description compensates for none of it — it repeats the four required fields already declared in the schema and says nothing about zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, ayanamsa selection, or name/city. For a 13-parameter tool the description should clarify at least which knobs matter for a Jaimini computation.

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?

Defines the specific resource in both technical (pada of the 12th house from lagna, A12) and interpretive terms (Jaimini significator for spouse, marriage, partnerships), so an agent can tell what it computes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby astroway_vedic_jaimini_padas or other Jaimini siblings.

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?

No statement of when to pick this over astroway_vedic_jaimini_padas or the compatibility/marriage tools; the interpretive gloss implies a marriage context but never says to use it for that. The only operational guidance is a list of required inputs and a credit cost, which is not selection guidance.

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