get_ascendant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explain behavior. It does not mention that the tool requires accurate birth details, may fail with invalid input, or that results depend on the Vedic system used. Still, it clearly states what is returned.

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?

Extremely concise with three sentences: function, output, and when to use. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's simplicity (5 required params, no output schema or nested objects), the description is adequately complete for a straightforward computation tool. It covers purpose and usage trigger, but could mention dependencies on accurate time data or limitations for edge cases.

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?

The input schema already has full coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond naming the tool's purpose, but it reiterates the overall function, which is acceptable given the schema already handles details.

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 calculates Lagna/Ascendant for a birth, specifying it returns zodiac sign, degree, and nakshatra. This distinguishes it from other tools that compute different astrological elements like moon sign or planetary details.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use (e.g., 'what is my lagna?') and provides context for Vedic astrology. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage when other tools are more appropriate or mention alternatives among siblings.

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