Varga D45 — Akshavedamsa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds only cost information ('20 credits') and a group label, not behavioral details like data limits or caching. 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?

Two-sentence description with an example request body is concise. The purpose is front-loaded, and the example is helpful. However, the example could be structured more clearly (e.g., bulleted list). Still 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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and a complex chart type, the description is too minimal. It explains what the chart represents but not what the output contains (e.g., planet positions, house cusps), how to interpret results, or any limitations. An example request is present but not sufficient.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no clarifications on optional fields like houseSystem or city). 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 clearly states 'Akshavedamsa chart (general life patterns, paternal lineage)' which specifies the exact chart type (Varga D45) and its domain. Combined with the title, it effectively distinguishes this from other varga charts among many sibling 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?

No guidance on when to use D45 over other varga charts (e.g., D1, D9, D60). The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer without help.

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