Varga D10: Dasamsa

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely behavioral facts not in structured data: the endpoint path and the billing weight (20 credits, Tier 2), which directly affects whether an agent should call it speculatively. Return behavior is covered by the output 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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by compact bracketed metadata; no filler sentences. The bracket lines carry real information (group, endpoint, cost) rather than padding, though the required-parameters line duplicates the schema.

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?

For a 13-parameter astrological computation with only 23% schema description coverage, the description says nothing about how the optional settings change the resulting D10 chart, and nothing about ayanamsa/sidereal defaults that materially affect divisional-chart results. The output schema offsets the need to describe return values, but the input-side gaps remain substantial.

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?

The description only restates the four required parameters already declared in the schema's `required` array, adding no meaning. With 23% schema description coverage across 13 parameters, the undocumented ones (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId) and the interplay between ayanamsa/ayanamsaId and timezone/timezoneOffset get no clarification from the description at all.

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 (Dasamsa/D10 divisional chart) and its domain (career, profession, public reputation), which lets an agent distinguish it from the other varga tools (D1, D7, D9, D12...) by division and subject matter. It stops short of an explicit 'use D10 rather than D9 when...' routing statement, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

The parenthetical 'career, profession, public reputation' implies the question types this chart answers, which is usage guidance by association. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison to sibling varga endpoints, so the agent must infer the routing.

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