Varga D7: Saptamsa

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds the pieces annotations do not: the endpoint, the four required birth-data fields, and a concrete cost of 20 credits (Tier 2). It says nothing about what inputs are ignored when conflicting (e.g., ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId) or how the chart is derived, but with annotations and an output schema in place this is a reasonable partial contribution.

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 bracketed metadata block is front-loaded and wastes nothing: one identification sentence followed by group, endpoint, required inputs, and cost. It is terse to the point of being telegraphic rather than prose, but no sentence needs deleting.

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 chart computation tool, the definition covers only the minimum needed to fire a request. It omits any explanation of how the D7 chart is computed from natal data, the meaning of the sidereal/house-system options, or how the credit cost scales — gaps the output schema and annotations do not fill.

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, yet the description merely restates the four required fields already declared in the schema's 'required' array. The nine optional parameters (zodiacType, houseSystem enums, cosmogram, ayanamsa/ayanamsaId interplay, city/name) get no explanation, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Saptamsa chart') and its domain significations ('children, progeny'), which is more than the tool name alone conveys. It does not differentiate from the many sibling varga tools (D1, D9, D10, etc.) beyond the naming itself, so an agent must infer that D7 is the progeny division.

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 '(children, progeny)' implies the topical use case, which is genuinely helpful routing signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternative varga tools when the question is about a different life area.

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