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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read operation (checking for dosha) and specifies what it returns (dosha type, severity, effects). However, it does not disclose computational requirements, accuracy limitations, or error conditions (e.g., invalid dates). For a celestial computation tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: one defining the purpose and condition, another listing the return values. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose. Perfectly concise for its complexity.

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, the description appropriately lists return values (dosha type, severity, effects). The input schema fully covers parameters. The tool is standalone but the context of sibling tools implies a specific domain. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a note on error handling would improve completeness.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already explains each field. The description adds no further parameter details beyond the schema. Thus, the description adds minimal value, and the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks for Kaal Sarp Dosha, explicitly defines the condition (all 7 planets hemmed between Rahu and Ketu), and lists the return values (dosha type, severity, effects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_mangal_dosha or check_sade_sati.

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 implies usage when the user wants to check for Kaal Sarp Dosha. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., for other dosha checks or general astrological analysis) or mention prerequisites like accurate birth data. The sibling list provides context but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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

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

The description discloses that it checks specific houses, returns dosha status, trigger houses, and cancellation conditions. With no annotations provided, this is sufficient behavioral transparency. It does not mention any destructive effects or permissions, but that is appropriate for a read-only astrological calculation.

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?

Two sentences with clear, front-loaded information. The first sentence defines purpose and scope, the second adds context and output. Could be shortened slightly but remains efficient.

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 the complexity of Mangal Dosha (specific houses, cancellation conditions), the description covers the key aspects. Without an output schema, it appropriately mentions return fields (status, trigger houses, cancellations). The parameter schema is fully described, so no gaps.

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?

Description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond listing dosha-related output, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No further parameter details are needed.

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 clearly identifies the specific astrological concept (Mangal Dosha) with exact triggering houses (1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 12th). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_kaalsarp_dosha and check_sade_sati by focusing on Mars affliction for matrimonial compatibility.

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 states the tool is 'highly relevant for matrimonial compatibility', implying its primary use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives among sibling tools like get_kundali_match or get_moon_sign.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior. It states the tool returns current status, phase, and dates, disclosing the core output. However, it does not disclose potential errors, edge cases (e.g., if Moon sign cannot be computed), or any limitations. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 compact at three sentences, front-loading the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value: definition, significance, and expected output. No extraneous information.

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 the tool's complexity (astrological computation with 5 required params), the description adequately explains the concept and output. With full schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. Could mention that the tool uses all params to compute the Moon sign and Saturn transit, but overall sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how the parameters are used (e.g., to compute Moon sign or Saturn position). Thus, no boost beyond baseline.

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 clearly states it checks if a person is currently in Sade Sati, defined as the 7.5-year period when Saturn transits sign positions relative to the natal Moon sign. It also specifies what is returned (status, phase, dates), and the mention of Vedic astrology context differentiates it from other check tools like check_kaalsarp_dosha or check_mangal_dosha.

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 defines the tool's purpose and indicates it is for Vedic astrology, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_planet_transits) or mention prerequisites like requiring a known birth time. Usage is implied for astrological assessment of Saturn's influence.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool provides finer timing and each Mahadasha is divided into 9 sub-periods, which is helpful. However, it does not describe side effects, data source, or whether calculations are based on a specific system (e.g., Vimshottari). A 3 is adequate.

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?

Very concise: two sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose and provide helpful context about the 9 sub-periods. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives a clear picture of what it does and provides context about the 9 sub-periods. Given the complexity of the domain, it is complete enough.

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 the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. The description does not add additional meaning to any parameter beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it gets Antardasha (sub-periods) within a Mahadasha. The verb 'get' and resource 'Antardasha' are specific. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_current_dasha and get_dasha_timeline by focusing on sub-periods.

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?

Implies usage when finer timing is needed within a Mahadasha, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus other dasha tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explain behavior. It does not mention that the tool requires accurate birth details, may fail with invalid input, or that results depend on the Vedic system used. Still, it clearly states what is returned.

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?

Extremely concise with three sentences: function, output, and when to use. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 the tool's simplicity (5 required params, no output schema or nested objects), the description is adequately complete for a straightforward computation tool. It covers purpose and usage trigger, but could mention dependencies on accurate time data or limitations for edge cases.

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?

The input schema already has full coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond naming the tool's purpose, but it reiterates the overall function, which is acceptable given the schema already handles details.

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 clearly states the tool calculates Lagna/Ascendant for a birth, specifying it returns zodiac sign, degree, and nakshatra. This distinguishes it from other tools that compute different astrological elements like moon sign or planetary details.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use (e.g., 'what is my lagna?') and provides context for Vedic astrology. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage when other tools are more appropriate or mention alternatives among siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden. It explains the Vimshottari system is 120-year and used for life predictions, adding context that this is a read-only computational tool. However, it does not disclose any error conditions or assumptions (e.g., if data is invalid).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key output details. No fluff. The information about the 120-year system is relevant context.

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 the tool has 5 required parameters (all basic location/birth data), no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention that the calculation requires precise birth data, but overall complete.

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 description does not need to elaborate. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining the coordinate format, but this is already in schema descriptions). Baseline score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the current Vimshottari Mahadasha for a person's birth chart, listing the return fields (ruling planet, start date, end date, remaining years). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_antardasha or get_dasha_timeline by focusing on the current mahadasha.

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 implicitly indicates use when the current major period is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., get_antardasha for sub-periods, get_dasha_timeline for full schedule). Lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the AI add-on requirement, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it makes any modifications, or what the output format looks like. The description lacks transparency about side effects or limitations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. However, the phrase 'based on the ruling planet, its placement...' is somewhat verbose but not wasteful.

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 5 required parameters (birth details), a clear purpose, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the narrative covers but lacks details on the output format or any prerequisites beyond the AI add-on.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain, for instance, that the birth details are required to compute the Dasha period.

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 clearly states the tool returns an AI-generated narrative for the current Dasha, specifying what it covers (themes, challenges, opportunities) and how it's derived (ruling planet, placement, interactions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_current_dasha (which likely returns raw data) and interpret_chart_ai (general AI interpretation).

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 implies usage when the user wants an AI interpretation of the current Dasha, with the prerequisite of an AI add-on plan. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for raw Dasha data) or mention alternatives like get_current_dasha.

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

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

Description explains output structure with periods and durations, which adds context. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Could mention return format details.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with purpose. Slightly long due to listing periods, but necessary for clarity.

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?

With 5 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers purpose and output well. Could mention ordering or typical use case.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds context about output (periods) but doesn't repeat param details. Slight value add.

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?

Description clearly states it gets a 120-year Vimshottari Mahadasha sequence from birth, listing all 9 planetary periods with durations. It distinguishes from siblings like get_current_dasha and get_antardasha.

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?

Description implies use for full timeline, but doesn't explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives like get_current_dasha for current period only.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it 'fetches' a chart, implying a read operation, but does not describe output format, limitations, or side effects. Acceptable but could add details about what is returned.

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?

Very concise two-sentence description. First sentence states purpose, second provides key examples. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but no wasted words.

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 the 7 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and sibling tools that are distinct, the description is complete enough. It covers the main chart types and their purposes, though could mention that style is optional. Overall adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the significance of certain chart types (e.g., marriage for D9, career for D10). This adds value, raising score to 4.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a divisional (Varga) chart, and lists specific chart types (D9, D10, D7, D3) with their astrological significance, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_planet_details or get_ascendant. verb+resource is specific and helpful.

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 mentions the most important chart types and their uses, providing guidance on when to use which. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide alternatives for other divisional purposes. Still clear context.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output includes gem, planet, metal, mantra, and benefits, and provides mapping examples. It does not mention potential side effects, input validation, or rate limits, but for a read-only recommendation tool, the behavioral disclosure is adequate and additive.

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 sentences: one high-level summary, one list of returned items, and one with mapping examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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, the description explains return values. No nested objects, 5 params all required, and schema covers them. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output. Slight deduction for not mentioning whether the tool handles invalid birth data gracefully.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (dob format, tob format, lat/lon examples, tz offset). The schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter details but reinforces the overall purpose. A higher score is not warranted because the description doesn't explain how parameters influence results (e.g., unusual time zones).

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 clearly states the tool returns Jyotish gemstone recommendations based on a birth chart, listing included details (gem, ruling planet, metal, mantra, benefits). The verb 'Get' and resource 'gem suggestions' are specific, and the mapping examples (Sun→Ruby) distinguish it from sibling tools like get_kundali_match or get_planet_details.

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 implies usage when the user wants gemstone recommendations, which is distinct from other astrological tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide comparisons to siblings like check_mangal_dosha or get_moon_sign, missing opportunities to guide selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: it returns a 36-point compatibility score across 8 categories. This is sufficient for a read-only analysis tool, though it could mention that inputs require accurate birth data.

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?

Description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently communicates the core function and output without 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?

Given the tool has 10 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention if the score is returned as a number or object.

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?

Input schema provides 100% parameter description coverage (10 parameters, all described). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool performs Kundali matching (Guna Milan/Ashtakoot) for two birth charts, returns a 36-point compatibility score across 8 categories, and is essential for matrimonial compatibility analysis. The verb 'Perform' and specific resource 'Kundali matching' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool is for matrimonial compatibility analysis, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings. Sibling tools like check_mangal_dosha or check_kaalsarp_dosha are related but distinct; no guidance on choosing between them.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it uses Vedic astrology and returns sign, degree, nakshatra, and pada, but doesn't mention computational assumptions, precision, or any constraints. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Concise two-sentence description front-loading the core purpose, then adding context and return details. No wasted words.

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 the tool complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers inputs and basic outputs but lacks completeness: does not specify if time zone is required for accuracy, no mention of error handling or edge cases (e.g., ambiguous birth times). Adequate for a simple calculator.

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 parameters are already well-defined in schema. The description adds no further detail on parameters, which is acceptable given high coverage. However, a brief note on the required format (already in schema) is present.

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?

Clearly states the tool calculates the Moon sign (Chandra Rashi) and specifies that it returns sign, degree, nakshatra, and pada. However, it could better differentiate from sibling tools like get_planet_details or get_ascendant, which also return astrological positions.

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?

Implied usage: when you need the Moon sign for Vedic astrology. No explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Given sibling tools that provide planetary positions, a note on preference would help.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool calculates time slots based on a date and location, but it does not mention if it requires internet, if it has rate limits, or if it is read-only. The description adds value by explaining the planetary rulers and qualities, but behavioral traits like data dependence or side effects are not covered.

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 concise with 2 sentences and 31 words. It front-loads the key information (what it is) and then provides additional usage context. There is no wasted text.

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, the description effectively describes the return: 'all time slots with planet ruler and quality.' The tool is moderately complex (5 parameters, no enums), and the description covers the functional essence. It could mention that the returned data includes day and night periods, but that is implied by 'divided into day and night periods.'

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 all 5 parameters described individually. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the tool calculates muhurta for the given date and location, which ties the parameters together. However, it does not provide additional details about the meaning of 'tz' or 'lat/lon' beyond what the schema already has.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Get Choghadiya muhurta — the auspicious and inauspicious time slots for a day...' It specifies the resource (Choghadiya muhurta) and provides context about auspiciousness for activities. It distinguishes from other astrology tools like 'get_panchang' or 'check_kaalsarp_dosha' by focusing on daily time slots rather than planetary periods or doshas.

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 partially says when to use: for starting new ventures, contracts, travel. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings. The usage context is implied but not comprehensive.

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

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

The description provides behavioral context by stating it is based on date of birth, but no annotations are provided to cover safety or side effects. Since it is a read-only operation, no destructive behavior is expected, but the description does not explicitly confirm this.

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 concise (two sentences), lists outputs clearly, and is front-loaded with key information. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no repetition.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers inputs and outputs adequately, though it could mention that the output might include warnings or default values for optional name.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage (dob format and name as optional). The description adds value by explaining that 'name' is used for name number calculation, which is not in the schema. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 clearly states the tool provides a full Vedic numerology profile and lists specific outputs (Life Path number, Destiny number, etc.). It distinguishes itself by focusing on numerology as opposed to astrology or other features available in sibling tools.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool when a numerology profile is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Sibling tools like 'get_kundali_match' or 'get_moon_sign' serve different purposes, but the description does not guide the agent away from them.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the outputs and their significance (five limbs, plus extras). It does not discuss limits, error cases, or side effects, but the scope is well-defined.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states the core purpose and outputs, second provides context (muhurta). No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple outputs, no output schema), the description covers the main return values and purpose. It lacks details on formatting or error handling, but the inputs are fully specified in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but examples are provided in the schema for each parameter, making it clear.

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 explicitly names the resource (Vedic Hindu Panchang) and lists all five limbs (Tithi, Nakshatra, etc.) plus additional outputs (sunrise/sunset, moon sign, festivals). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools focused on specific astrological checks like mangal dosha or dasha calculations.

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 states it is essential for muhurta (auspicious timing), implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings, though the tool is unique among siblings for panchang data.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates the tool returns positions and retrograde status but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or return format (e.g., is data returned in a specific structure?).

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists all returned items. No extraneous information.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of return values (planet positions, sign, house, nakshatra, degree, retrograde). It lacks details on the format or structure of the response, but for a foundational tool with good schema coverage, it is mostly complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters (dob, tob, lat, lon, tz) with examples. The description does not add any new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema gives.

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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Get') and resource ('complete Vedic birth chart'), lists the specific planets and ascendant included, and distinguishes itself as the foundation of Vedic astrology analysis.

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 implies this is the starting point for Vedic analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_ascendant or get_moon_sign. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation (get current positions) and mentions real-time data, but does not disclose any destructive effects, rate limits, or data freshness specifics.

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?

Description is concise with two sentences covering purpose and use cases. No fluff, but could be slightly more structured with clear sections.

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 simple retrieval tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks information about the return format (e.g., JSON structure) and any limitations (e.g., only today's data).

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves real-time planetary transit data for all 9 planets, specifying returned fields (signs, degrees, retrograde status). However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tool 'get_planet_details', which may overlap.

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?

It provides clear use cases (transit analysis, electional astrology) and example queries ('where is Saturn right now?'), but no when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full behavioral burden. It states the tool returns yoga name, planets involved, and interpretation, but doesn't mention computational complexity, birth time precision requirements, or whether it handles edge cases like missing planetary data. Contradicts nothing since annotations are absent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and list of yoga types. Efficient and scannable.

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, so description should clarify return structure. It mentions 'yoga name, planets involved, and interpretation' but lacks detail like data format or pagination. Adequate for a tool with 5 simple parameters but could be more thorough.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond schema descriptions (e.g., format examples). It mentions inputs implicitly (birth chart) but doesn't explain how parameters affect yoga detection.

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 clearly states the tool detects and lists Yogas in a birth chart, specifying types like Raj Yogas, Dhana Yogas, and Panch Mahapurusha Yogas. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_mangal_dosha' which are specific defect checks, but doesn't differentiate from other chart interpretation tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings include various dosha checks and dashas, but the description doesn't clarify when yoga analysis is preferred over other astrological components.

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

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

The description discloses that it uses Claude (Anthropic) and requires an AI add-on plan, which is useful. It indicates a 700+ word output. No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or that it may incur costs beyond the plan.

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 a single paragraph of moderate length, front-loading the purpose. It lists covered sections efficiently. It is slightly verbose in listing sections but remains clear. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's complexity (AI-powered generation) and lack of output schema, the description adequately sets expectations about output length and content covered. However, it could mention if the output is text-only or structured, and any limitations (e.g., accuracy disclaimers).

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%, and each parameter has a clear description with example values. The description focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details, which is acceptable since the schema already explains them well. It adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the 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 clearly states the tool generates a full AI-powered Vedic birth chart reading using Claude. It lists the specific sections covered (Ascendant, Moon sign, Sun sign, placements, yogas, Dasha period) and distinguishes it as a comprehensive, long-form interpretation. This verb+resource specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like get_current_dasha or get_planet_details.

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 implies use when a detailed, personalized reading is needed, contrasting with more specific sibling tools. It mentions the AI add-on plan requirement, which sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for quick answers) or compare alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the number of endpoints and filtering behavior, which is adequate. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, or any side effects – though such details may be unnecessary for a list operation.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and lists categories concisely. No unnecessary words.

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 the simple tool (list with optional filter) and the good schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It could mention the output or pagination, but for a list tool, the current description suffices.

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?

The schema already describes the parameter well with 100% coverage and an enum. The description adds context by listing the categories, reinforcing the parameter semantics. A score of 4 is appropriate as it adds value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool lists all 106+ endpoints in the API and supports optional filtering by category, which is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to discover available endpoints) and lists categories for filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond noting the search_endpoints sibling tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it searches cities and retrieves coordinates/timezone, which is adequate but does not disclose potential search behavior (e.g., partial match, case sensitivity) or any mutation side effects.

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?

Two sentences with clear flow: what it does, when to use, scope. Minimal but effective, though the last sentence could be integrated to reduce 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?

Given the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and use case sufficiently. It could mention that the output includes coordinates for precise location, but overall adequate.

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 only one parameter, and the description adds the example 'Mumbai', 'Delhi', 'London' reinforcing the parameter's usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides clear description.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Look up'), resource ('latitude, longitude, and timezone for a city by name'), and scope ('80+ Indian and global cities'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_moon_sign or get_planet_details.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool 'before any birth chart calculation' when coordinates are unknown, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives among siblings.

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

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what the schema and annotations provide. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the search function without detailing behavior like case sensitivity, partial matching, or response structure. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the purpose.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly convey purpose and usage. No extraneous words.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It lacks information about output format, but since no output schema exists, the description could be improved by hinting at the results. However, given the tool's simplicity, a score of 4 is justified.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for the query parameter with examples. The description's mention of keywords adds no new semantic value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource 'VedIntel™ AstroAPI endpoints by keyword'. It clearly states the tool's purpose and adds examples of search terms, making it easy for an agent to understand its function.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool: 'when you know what you want' and includes examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which are present among siblings (e.g., list_endpoints for browsing all endpoints).

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