vedika_birth_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: the ephemeris used, the default ayanamsa, and per-call pricing ($0.016-0.028/call). It omits things like determinism, failure modes, and auth requirements, and the polar-latitude rejection is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then modes, then cost, with no filler sentences. There is some duplication of the 'type' enum text that also appears in the schema, which is mild 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by sketching what each mode returns, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It leaves out error behavior and the required-parameter contract, but core needs are covered.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the 'type' enum meanings but does add return-content detail (9 planets + Rahu/Ketu with retrograde status) and confirms the Lahiri default for ayanamsa, though it adds nothing for datetime, latitude, longitude, or timezone.

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 ('Generate a Vedic birth chart (Kundli)') and enumerates its outputs (planetary positions, house cusps, ascendant, nakshatras, dignities). It never names an overlapping sibling such as vedika_horoscope or vedika_divisional_charts, so an agent must infer which chart tool to pick.

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 mode breakdown gives clear context for choosing a 'type' value ('kundli' returns the full chart, 'planetary-positions' returns all 9 planets, etc.), and it states the calculation basis (sidereal, Lahiri default). However there are no exclusions or alternatives for the many sibling chart tools, so cross-tool selection guidance is missing.

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