vedika_daily_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely useful operational caveat — consult current Vedika API pricing before use — and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or response shape. Adequate, not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the payload enumeration before the disambiguation and the pricing note. Every sentence carries information, though the pricing caveat sits at the tail where an agent is most likely to drop it.

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 no-required-param aggregation tool with no output schema, enumerating the seven bundled content types effectively stands in for a return-value description. What remains thin is per-item detail and whether the bundle can be partial, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, with 'date' (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today) and 'lang' (en, hi, default en) already documented. The description reinforces the daily/date framing via "the day's content" but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the day's general content in one call') and enumerates exactly what is bundled: tarot card, angel number, crystal, mantra, moon phase, rune and I Ching. It also carves out scope negatively ('not a personal or per-sign reading'), so an agent can distinguish it from vedika_horoscope, vedika_tarot_daily and vedika_iching_cast without opening a 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?

Gives explicit routing: use this for general daily content, use vedika_horoscope for a sign horoscope, use vedika_panchang for panchang. The exclusion of personal/per-sign readings is stated outright rather than implied, which is exactly what a sibling-routing decision needs.

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