vedika_ai_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses plan-based availability, latency drivers, and a billing-terms link, but it omits auth requirements, error behavior, and whether the endpoint is strictly read-only aside from conversation state.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then adds operational caveats without becoming bloated. The billing sentence is a production-use caveat rather than invocation guidance, but it is relevant enough to justify its place.

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 ten-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers invocation context and some operational caveats. It still leaves return-shape, auth, and error-handling details implicit, so it is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all ten parameters in detail, including enums and nested birth-detail objects. The description mainly restates the system enum, birth-details condition, and conversationId purpose rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: send natural-language astrology questions to the Vedika API, with birth details when needed. It is clear this is the general-purpose chat endpoint, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many specialized sibling tools such as vedika_birth_chart or vedika_dasha.

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 gives some usage context: birth details are required when the operation needs them, system selects Vedic/Western/KP, and conversationId is for follow-ups. However, it never says when to choose this tool over the specialized astrology siblings or when not to use it, leaving the main routing decision implicit.

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