Varga D16 — Shodasamsa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds only group and cost info, which are not behavioral. It does not disclose output format, pagination, or any side effects beyond what annotations state.

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 short with three lines: purpose, metadata, and example. The example is somewhat lengthy but overall concise. Could be slightly tighter by omitting the example or moving it to a note.

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?

With no output schema and 7 parameters, the description lacks details about what the tool returns (e.g., chart data structure) and how it integrates with other Vedic tools. The agent is left uninformed about expected output.

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% with all parameters described. The description provides an example request body but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as the Shodasamsa chart (D16) and associates it with vehicles, comforts, and conveyances, which differentiates it from other varga charts. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool calculates or returns the chart, relying on inference from the title and name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over other vedic_varga tools (e.g., D1, D9) or the general vedic_divisional tool. The agent receives no selection criteria beyond the tool's theme.

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