Varga D1: Rashi

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful operational context (POST endpoint, 20-credit Tier 2 cost, required inputs). It does not disclose defaults for the many optional parameters (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem) or how they alter the output.

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-loaded with the definition sentence, followed by compact bracketed metadata. Every line carries information, though the 'Group: Vedic' line is low value.

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 values need no explanation, and safety is annotated. However, for a 13-parameter charting tool the description gives no guidance on ayanamsa/zodiac/house-system choices or timezone handling, which materially affect the result.

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 lists only the four required fields – information the schema already carries. Meaningful options such as ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, and cosmogram are left entirely to the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Names the specific artifact (sidereal natal/rashi chart, D1) and asserts its role as the base divisional chart. It is distinguishable from the D2–D60 varga siblings by the explicit 'D1' designation, though it does not contrast itself with astroway_vedic_kundli, which likely covers similar ground.

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?

'Foundation of Vedic analysis' implies this is the starting chart, which is weak guidance on when to pick it over varga_d9 or kundli. There are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternatives among the many Vedic siblings.

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