Varga D45: Akshavedamsa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real addition is the cost disclosure (20 credits, Tier 2) and the endpoint, which help the agent budget. It says nothing about computation basis (which ayanamsa/house system applies by default) or latency.

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 meaning, then bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, requirements, and cost. No filler sentences, though the bracketed tags are service metadata rather than behavioral 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?

For a 13-parameter tool with three enum parameters and no explanation of how those enums affect the D45 result, the description is thin. It is helped by an existing output schema and by schema-level descriptions on ayanamsa/timezone, but an agent still lacks guidance on which sidereal school or house system to send for a Vedic divisional chart.

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 needs to compensate and does not. It merely restates the four required parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude), which the schema's `required` array already declares. Nothing is said about ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, or timezone handling for this chart.

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 (Akshavedamsa / D45) and states its interpretive scope (general life patterns, paternal lineage), which lets an agent distinguish it from the other varga siblings by number and theme. It does not explicitly contrast with neighboring divisional charts, but the identifier itself 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?

The parenthetical themes hint at what the chart is for, but there is no statement of when to choose D45 over D9/D10/D60, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent knowing only that it wants a 'divisional chart' gets no routing help.

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