vastu_room_placement

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the response content (compliance, severity, recommended zone, remedy) plus the read-only framing implied by 'Get'. The note about 'one dedicated backend endpoint per room type' hints at per-call cost/no batching. It stops short of stating explicitly that nothing is mutated, or what happens with invalid room/zone combinations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return content, then the disambiguation. The 'one dedicated backend endpoint per room type' clause is the weakest line — it is an implementation detail that earns only marginal place and could be cut or moved.

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 a two-param, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it lists the returned fields and the scope boundary. What it omits is failure behavior (e.g., unknown room/zone pair) and whether guidance is deterministic — minor for this tool class but not nothing.

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% with two fully enumerated parameters, so the schema already defines valid values and their meanings. The description reinforces the key semantic ('specific (or proposed) compass zone', one room at a time) but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond that. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get Vastu Shastra placement guidance for ONE room type in a specific compass zone') and enumerates exactly what comes back: compliance verdict, severity, recommended zone, remedy. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (vastu_audit_floor_plan) and the scope difference (one room vs whole building), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 final sentence gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: use vastu_audit_floor_plan for a whole building. The '(or proposed)' parenthetical also tells the agent this works for hypothetical placements, not just existing ones — a real usage distinction that is otherwise easy to miss.

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