Varga D4: Chaturthamsa

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful context not present in structured fields: the POST endpoint and a cost of 20 credits (Tier 2), which matters before spending budget. It says nothing about computation latency or output shape, but with an output schema present that gap is tolerable.

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 with the chart name and domain, followed by compact bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost). No filler sentences. The tag-block style is slightly telegraphic but every line carries information.

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 computation endpoint the description covers only the required quartet and omits all optional-but-impactful inputs, leaving an agent unable to know what varying ayanamsa or houseSystem would change. The existing output schema offsets the need to explain returns, but the input side remains substantially under-described.

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. The description merely restates the four required fields, which the schema's required array already declares, and does nothing for the nine optional parameters (houseSystem enum, zodiacType, cosmogram, city, name, ayanamsaId) that carry real semantic weight. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 the resource (Chaturthamsa / D4 divisional chart) and its interpretive domain (fortune, fixed assets, real estate), which is more than the name alone. But among ~15 sibling varga tools it never explains what distinguishes D4 from D9, D10, etc., so an agent still has to know Vedic divisional-chart conventions to choose correctly.

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 domain hints at when the chart is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to, and no routing to any of the numerous varga or kundli siblings. The agent is left to infer selection criteria entirely.

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