vedika_horoscope

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 non-obvious behavior: pre-flight failure for unsupported Western periods, an 'advanced registered route' for precision positions, and a billing/pricing caution. It omits what a response actually contains, but the failure-mode and tier disclosure is substantive rather than boilerplate.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core verb/resource, then constraints, then the pricing caveat. Each sentence carries information, though the final pricing sentence is vague about when/how much and could be tighter.

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, so the description should ideally hint at what a horoscope response contains; it does not. It does, however, cover the sign format, the period/system matrix, the Western limitation, and the pricing prerequisite — enough for an agent to call it correctly even if not to anticipate the payload.

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 three enums, so the schema already documents sign, period, system, and advanced. The description reinforces the sign language variants and adds cost/routing context for advanced=true, but adds little beyond the enum descriptions. Baseline 3 applies 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 (Get) plus the exact resource (Vedic horoscope for daily/weekly/monthly, Western daily) and scopes it to a zodiac sign. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like vedika_western_transits or vedika_birth_chart because the description pins the resource to horoscope readings for a sign.

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 real constraints — Western weekly/monthly is rejected before any API call, and advanced=true routes through a registered tier — which tells the agent what not to attempt. But it never names an alternative sibling (e.g. vedika_western_transits or vedika_daily_bundle) or states when to prefer this tool over them, so routing guidance is only implied.

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