get_gochara

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

With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral detail: it computes verdicts using classical tables, lists specific conditions, and states positions at sunrise. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the read-only nature is evident.

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 concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the purpose and then efficiently covering outputs and parameters. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 complexity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the output and most inputs. It lacks explicit error handling or interaction details for latitude/longitude with city, but overall feels complete for an astrological tool.

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 description adds meaning for date, janma_rasi, city, and ayanamsa (including defaults and examples), but latitude, longitude, and timezone parameters are not fully explained—only implied via city. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 defines the tool as providing Gochara (transit) verdicts for a janma rasi, detailing the specific outputs (house positions, verdicts, named conditions). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_graha_positions and get_rasi_phalalu by focusing on transit verdicts per classical tables.

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 explains the tool's function and parameter usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context of usage is implied but not directly guided.

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