Varga D4 — Chaturthamsa

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond these; it simply states the chart type. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not provide additional context like what the chart contains or if any side effects exist.

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, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. Bracketed meta-info (group, cost) and an example are provided efficiently. While very brief, every element serves a purpose, though a bit more context could be included without becoming verbose.

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 large number of sibling tools (especially other vedic_varga tools), the description lacks differentiation. It does not explain how D4 differs from other divisional charts like D1 or D10, nor what specific use cases call for this chart. The domain hints (fortune, assets) are helpful but insufficient for an agent to reliably select this tool over alternatives.

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 clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., date, time, timezoneOffset). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the example. With full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional value.

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 a Chaturthamsa chart (Varga D4) and lists its domains: fortune, fixed assets, and real estate. The title and name further identify it as a specific Vedic divisional chart, distinguishing it from other varga tools like D1, D2, etc.

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 only states the group and cost, and gives an example request body. There is no comparison with other Vedic varga tools or indication of scenarios where D4 is appropriate.

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