vedic_chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: credit cost (1 per call), the list of supported ayanamsa values, and the default ayanamsa (lahiri). It also states the output contents, which helps set expectations. This is a solid contribution beyond 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (CREDIT COST, SUPPORTED AYANAMSA, EXAMPLE) and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every section provides actionable information. The example is a nice touch without bloating the text.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the result will contain (planet placements, nakshatras, navamsa, bhavas) and the astrological framework (Whole Sign, sidereal, ayanamsa). The example provides a complete invocation. It doesn't cover edge cases or error handling, but for a read-only calculation tool with good annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds a concrete example with datetime, latitude, and longitude, which reinforces usage but doesn't reveal new semantics. The supported ayanamsa list is redundant given the schema enum. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Calculate') and a clear resource ('Vedic (Jyotish) natal chart with sidereal positions'), then enumerates the output (rashis, nakshatras, navamsa, bhavas). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying sidereal/Vedic methodology and Whole Sign houses, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context: it is the tool for Vedic natal chart calculations with sidereal positions and configurable ayanamsa. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from Western chart tools or exploration variants. A bit more explicit sibling comparison would push to 5.

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