Prashna: number to sign

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds mode-dependent output content (sign + navamsa; planet/parity/tithi/nakshatra/weekday/rasi/bhuta), but since an output schema exists this is supplemental rather than essential. No mention of cost/credit implications in the description itself.

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?

Front-loads the core concept, then breaks out each mode in a compact clause, ending with the out-of-scope routing. Dense and telegraphic but nearly every clause carries information; only the opening sentence is slightly awkward.

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 annotations, a 2-parameter schema, and an output schema already present, the description supplies what's missing: mode semantics, digit constraints, and escape routing. Only the 888 upper bound versus the '108 and above goes to KP' rule is left ambiguous.

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 coverage is 50%; the `system` enum is already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates it. It does add useful meaning for `number` - the 1-108 range per navamsa and digits 1-8 for the three-digit form, plus the redirect above 108 - but the max of 888 is left unexplained against that routing rule.

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?

States a concrete transformation (a querent's number read as a sign) and enumerates the two reading modes with their outputs. It is clearly distinct from prashna_chart/analysis, though it never names a sibling to contrast with explicitly.

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?

Gives real conditional routing: navamsa108 is the default for 1-108, ashtamangala is for the three-digit Prasna Marga number, and numbers above 108 belong to the KP horary endpoint. No guidance on when to prefer this over the other prashna tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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