vedika_divisional_charts

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 that the Vedika Ephemeris is used and that the cost is $0.005/call, but it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or other operational details an agent might need.

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 the core action and then provides a dense but necessary list of chart meanings. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema fields.

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?

The schema is rich and the description covers chart selection and cost, but with no output schema and no explanation of what the tool returns, the definition is not fully complete for a complex calculation tool. An agent knows how to invoke it but not what output shape to expect.

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 parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the life-area purpose of every chart enum value, which helps an agent choose the right D-chart; the remaining parameters are left to the already-rich 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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Calculate Vedic divisional charts (Vargas)." It then enumerates each division and its life area, making the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as vedika_birth_chart, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Mapping each division to a life area (e.g., D9 for marriage/dharma, D10 for career) gives clear context for when to select a given chart. However, it names no alternative tools and gives no explicit when-not guidance, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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