vastu_operation

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what happens on an unknown or malformed op, whether calls execute synchronously or hand off to a job (notable given the vastu_job_submit/status/artifact siblings), or what side effects a given operation may have. The only behavioral hint, that batches/assessments need an idempotency key, comes from the schema, not the description.

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 core routing statement is front-loaded and the usage rule closes the description, which is good structure. The inline list of 18 examples is useful but dense and could be trimmed or grouped without losing selection signal.

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?

For the highest-complexity tool here (143 polymorphic operations, nested params object, no output schema), the description is enough to attempt a call but omits key operational facts: how to enumerate valid suffixes, sync-vs-job behavior, and error semantics. It is minimum viable rather than 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 baseline is 3; the op parameter is fully documented in the schema including the leading-slash trimming. The description adds value by enumerating 18 concrete suffix examples, but the polymorphic `params` body is left entirely to the schema's vague 'shape depends on the operation', and no guidance is given on how to discover per-operation shapes.

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?

States a specific action (invoke any Vastu Shastra operation) and the precise addressing mechanism (path suffix under /v2/astrology/vastu/). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the dedicated vastu_* siblings as the escape hatch for the remaining 143-operation surface, so an agent can tell immediately whether this is the right tool.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use this for the long tail not covered by dedicated vastu_* tools, and 'Prefer a dedicated vastu_* tool when your need matches one.' The 18 example suffixes further make concrete which families of operations fall here, leaving little to inference.

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