Vedic Wheel — North Indian (SVG)

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

The description adds behavioral detail ('12 fixed positions, signs rotate per ascendant') beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It does not contradict annotations. It could mention output format or error handling, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 description is extremely concise: two sentences plus an example. It front-loads the most critical information (layout type and rendering style) and uses the example efficiently. No extraneous text.

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?

Given the schema's thorough descriptions and the annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behavioral traits. The example provides practical context. A minor gap is the lack of description for the options object, but the schema covers it.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all properties. The description adds an example request body, which provides a concrete usage pattern beyond the schema alone. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 clearly states 'North Indian diamond chart layout' with '12 fixed positions, signs rotate per ascendant', which precisely identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like render_wheel_vedic_east and render_wheel_vedic_south by specifying 'North Indian' style.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for North Indian diamond chart rendering. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternative Vedic wheel layouts, so it does not fully guide selection among siblings.

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