vedika_spiritual_deity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the calculation method (Atmakaraka, D9, BPHS Ch.33), the additional Devatas returned, the contents of each deity result, and the per-call cost. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by method, secondary Devatas, output contents, and cost. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the calculation basis and enumerates return values including mantras, temples, worship day, and offerings. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it does not describe response structure or failure behavior in detail.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; its mention of mantras/temples/offerings relates to output content rather than parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Determine the Ishta Devata (personal deity) from the birth chart,' and names the core technique (Atmakaraka and D9 placement). It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like vedika_birth_chart or vedika_divisional_charts, so it stops 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?

The intended use is implied by 'Determine the Ishta Devata ... from the birth chart,' so an agent can infer this is for personal-deity questions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among siblings, and the cost note is not usage guidance.

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