Varshaphal: Tajika annual chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: the chart is cast on the sidereal solar return, which for adults lands many hours from the tropical return and therefore yields a different ascendant. What it omits is practical behavior such as the year range, coordinate requirements, and cost implications beyond the metadata tag.

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 first sentence is a tight statement of what the tool produces and is correctly front-loaded. The second sentence then spends most of its length on a five-point hour-gap series by age, which is illustrative trivia rather than invocational guidance and dilutes the signal an agent needs.

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 the schema documents inputs thoroughly. What is missing from the description is routing context: why choose this over the tropical solar return or lal_kitab_varshphal, and any note that a year at the birthday is required. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 50-credit Tier 3 call.

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 100% and the nested body description already carries detailed semantics (coordinate non-defaulting, timezone handling, houseSystem letters, year entered on the birthday). The tool description adds no parameter guidance of its own, so the 3 baseline applies.

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 a specific artifact, the Tajika annual chart for one year of life, and its defining computation (sidereal solar return to natal longitude). That implicitly separates it from the tropical solar return tool, but it never names astroway_prognostics_solar_return or astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_varshphal, the two siblings an agent would most plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative. The sidereal-vs-tropical contrast hints at the selection condition, but the agent must infer that this is the Vedic annual-chart option and that the year parameter refers to the birthday year.

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