get_gochara

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job: it discloses the verdict model, source support, unverified areas (e.g., node Vedha remains unverified), limits of the classical references, and that positions are at sunrise. These are genuine behavioral caveats beyond a simple 'returns transit results' statement.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, and the arg list is useful. However, the description spends several sentences on detailed verse citations and distinctions among Phaladeepika chapters; these support credibility but are heavier than needed for tool selection and basic invocation.

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?

The description covers output semantics, sources, and caveats well, and an output schema exists to document returned values. Nonetheless, it leaves four optional parameters undocumented and offers no guidance on defaults or when to override them, making the definition incomplete for a seven-parameter tool in a specialized domain.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains date format, daiji rashi spelling expectations, and city lookup, but omits ayanamsa, timezone, latitude, and longitude as separate parameters, despite the schema listing them. The phrase 'latitude+longitude' also loosely conflates two separate schema fields, which could mislead invocation.

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 first sentence clearly states the resource: Gochara transit verdicts per janma rasi, covering nine grahas, house positions, and favourable/vedha/adverse outcomes. This inherently distinguishes it from generic position or panchangam tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 conveys when to use it via domain language: when transit verdicts relative to the natal Moon sign are needed. However, it never states when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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