Varga D20 — Vimsamsa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safety. The description adds value by disclosing the cost (20 credits Tier 2) and the tool group (Vedic), which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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: one sentence for purpose, then group/cost/example. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no unnecessary words. The structure is efficient.

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 complex tool like a Vedic divisional chart, the description is minimal. Although the schema covers parameters 100%, the lack of output schema and description of what the result contains (e.g., chart data) leaves some gaps. The cost and group are helpful, but more context about output would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema. The example request body shows example values but does not explain parameter meaning. No additional semantics provided.

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 the tool computes/returns the Vimsamsa chart for spiritual progress, sadhana, and religious inclination. The verb is implied by the tool name and example, and the resource is specifically identified as Varga D20. This distinguishes it from other divisional charts like D9 or D10.

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 mentions the domain (spiritual progress, sadhana, religious inclination), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other varga tools), nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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