Jaimini — Upapada Lagna (UL)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool computes a ‘canonical Jaimini significator,’ which provides some context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It does not describe output format or side effects.

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: three lines including a definition, group label, and example. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains 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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, specialized Jaimini astrology context), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of output format, parameter semantics, and calculation specifics, relying heavily on user familiarity.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters beyond showing an example request. Required compensation for low coverage is missing, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 defines the tool as computing the Upapada Lagna (UL), the pada of the 12th house, and explicitly states its role as a canonical Jaimini significator for spouse, marriage, and partnerships. It provides sufficient specificity to distinguish it from other Jaimini tools.

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 implies usage for Jaimini marriage analysis but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vedic_jaimini_padas or other marriage-related tools. No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations are given.

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