Varga D12: Dwadasamsa

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the endpoint and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, letting the agent reason about expense before calling. It says nothing about output shape, but an output schema exists so that gap is partly excused.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then tightly itemized metadata in bracketed lines. Every line carries information (group, endpoint, required inputs, cost), though the bracketed format is more like a header block than prose.

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 an output schema and full annotations present, much of the burden is lifted, and cost/endpoint add useful operational context. However, for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, an agent still gets no explanation of the optional parameters that materially change the computation, so the definition is not fully complete.

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 should compensate and it does not. It merely restates the four required fields already declared in the schema's required array and says nothing about ayanamsa choice, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, or how timezone/timezoneOffset interact.

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 chart (Dwadasamsa / Varga D12) and its domain (parents, ancestral karma), which is enough to distinguish it from the many sibling varga tools d1-d60 whose names differ only by division number. It stops short of stating what the chart actually returns, but the 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose D12 over D9, D60, or the other divisional charts, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is a list of required inputs and a credit cost, which does not help the agent select among ~20 near-identical siblings.

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