Varga D60: Shashtiamsa

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is narrower. It adds genuinely new operational context: credit cost (20, Tier 2), the endpoint, and the birth-time precision sensitivity, which is behavior an agent should know before spending credits.

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-loads the meaning in one sentence, then packs group, endpoint, required fields, and cost into labeled brackets. No wasted prose, though the bracket metadata is fairly mechanical.

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, and cost plus required inputs are present. But for a 13-parameter chart call with mostly undocumented schema, leaving the optional configuration (sidereal school, house system) unexplained is a real gap.

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 coverage is only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. It merely restates the four required parameters that the schema already marks required, and says nothing about the nine optional ones (ayanamsa, houseSystem, zodiacType, cosmogram, name, city) whose enums are undocumented.

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 ('Shashtiamsa chart') and adds interpretive framing ('past karma, the most subtle divisional'). The D60 designation distinguishes it from the many sibling varga tools (d1, d9, d30...) by name, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Implies usage through the 'past karma' framing and warns that 'high precision needed in birth time', which is useful selection guidance. But it never says when to pick D60 over the other varga tools or D1, and gives no exclusions.

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