Varga D20: Vimsamsa

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what annotations cannot: the credit price (20, Tier 2), the HTTP endpoint, and the required input set. It says nothing about what the response contains (mitigated by the output schema) or about ayanamsa/timezone sensitivity of a divisional chart, which would be the higher-value behavioral disclosure.

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?

The interpretive gloss is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by compact bracketed metadata that is easy to scan. The group/endpoint tags are mildly redundant with the tool name and title, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 calculation tool, the definition covers identity, cost and required inputs, and the output schema handles return values. It is still thin on the settings an agent must reason about — which ayanamsa default applies, whether house system is meaningful for a D20, and how timezone resolution affects the result — leaving correctness dependent on the schema alone.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It restates the four required parameters already declared in the schema's `required` array and says nothing about the nine optional ones (ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone vs timezoneOffset), whose interactions are the main failure mode for this call.

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?

The description names the specific artifact (Vimsamsa / D20 chart) and states its interpretive domain — spiritual progress, sadhana, religious inclination — which lets an agent distinguish it from the many sibling varga tools (D1, D9, D10, D60) by subject rather than only by name. It stops short of an explicit 'use D20 for X, D9 for Y' comparison, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated in prose.

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 domain gloss ('spiritual progress, sadhana, religious inclination') implies when a D20 chart is the right request, and the [Required] line tells the agent the minimum inputs. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to a sibling divisional tool, so selection among the ~15 varga endpoints is left to the agent's own knowledge of Vedic astrology.

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