Varga D16: Shodasamsa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-schema context: the HTTP endpoint and a 20-credit (Tier 2) cost, which matters for call budgeting. It says nothing about error conditions, rate limits, or whether results are cached, so it adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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?

One compact line plus bracketed metadata; the purpose is front-loaded and the cost/endpoint/required facts are scannable. The bracket format is efficient, with no filler prose, though it reads more like manifest tags than agent-facing guidance.

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, but for a 13-parameter astrological computation with 23% schema coverage the description is thin: it omits how sidereal vs tropical mode is chosen by default, how timezone/timezoneOffset interact, and what makes a D16 call distinct. An agent can issue a call but may easily mis-set ayanamsa or house system.

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 does not. It merely restates the four required fields already listed in the schema's `required` array and never mentions ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone, timezoneOffset, or cosmogram — exactly the options that change the output.

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 specific resource (Shodasamsa / D16 divisional chart) and its traditional significations (vehicles, comforts, conveyances), so an agent can identify what it computes. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling varga tools (d1, d2, d3 ... d60, astroway_specialized_vedic_divisional), so an agent must infer from the name alone why D16 rather than D9 or D10 applies.

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 description lists the required parameters and the credit cost but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternative divisional-chart tools. Nothing tells the agent when a D16 reading is appropriate versus another varga or a full kundli call.

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