Varga D24: Chaturvimsamsa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the POST endpoint and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost — but says nothing about what the chart payload contains or any auth/precondition requirements.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, with operational facts (group, endpoint, required, cost) as compact bracketed tags. Every line carries information; the tag formatting is slightly mechanical but wastes no words.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, the description leaves meaningful gaps — notably whether a Vedic D24 defaults to sidereal zodiac and how ayanamsa/houseSystem 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% (3 of 13 parameters documented), so the description must compensate and it does not. It merely restates the four required parameters already declared in the schema's required array and gives no meaning for ayanamsa choice, zodiacType, houseSystem, or the optional city/name fields.

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 (Chaturvimsamsa / Siddhamsa) and its life domain (education, learning, academic achievement), which is enough to tell it apart from the D1, D9, D10 and other varga siblings. The only weakness is that the action is implicit ('chart') rather than an explicit verb like 'compute the D24 divisional chart'.

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 '(education, learning, academic achievement)' implies the question type that selects this tool, which is genuine implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of pairing it with the base kundli or D1 chart, and no exclusion or alternative named among the many varga siblings.

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