get_divisional_chart

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it 'fetches' a chart, implying a read operation, but does not describe output format, limitations, or side effects. Acceptable but could add details about 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?

Very concise two-sentence description. First sentence states purpose, second provides key examples. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but no wasted words.

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 7 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and sibling tools that are distinct, the description is complete enough. It covers the main chart types and their purposes, though could mention that style is optional. Overall adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the significance of certain chart types (e.g., marriage for D9, career for D10). This adds value, raising score to 4.

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 fetches a divisional (Varga) chart, and lists specific chart types (D9, D10, D7, D3) with their astrological significance, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_planet_details or get_ascendant. verb+resource is specific and helpful.

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 most important chart types and their uses, providing guidance on when to use which. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide alternatives for other divisional purposes. Still clear context.

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