Varga D3 — Drekkana

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds cost (20 credits) and group (Vedic), which are minor. It does not elaborate on output format, data sources, or any side effects. With annotations covering the core transparency needs, the description adds marginal value.

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 concise, with two substantive sentences plus meta tags. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a helpful example. While brevity is good, it could be more informative without becoming verbose. No extraneous content.

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?

This is a complex topic (Vedic divisional chart) with 7 parameters and many sibling tools. The description does not explain the concept of vargas, the significance of D3, or how it relates to other divisional charts. Without an output schema, more context is needed for the agent to understand the tool's role and 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description includes an example request body but does not provide additional semantics or constraints beyond the schema. Parameters like houseSystem and city are self-explanatory in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a Drekkana chart (Varga D3) and mentions its associations with siblings, courage, and trinal third-of-sign division. However, it does not differentiate from many similar vedic_varga sibling tools such as D1, D4, D9, etc., leaving ambiguity about when to choose this specific chart over others.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state typical use cases, prerequisites, or contrasting scenarios. Given the abundance of similar sibling tools, explicit usage instructions are crucial but absent.

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