compute_shadbala

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a calculation returning per-planet values and cites a specific scriptural source, but it does not disclose input validation, handling of missing planetary data, or what should happen when the provided planet objects lack required positional fields.

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-front-loaded sentence that names the exact computation, breaks out the full list of results, and includes a source reference. Every phrase contributes meaning with no filler or 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 complexity of a six-fold astrological computation, no annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin for full autonomy. It does not explain the meaning of the three inputs, the expected shape of a planet object, or what the return should contain beyond the bulleted balance names, so an agent might under-specify the request or mis-handle optional parameters.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 33% and the description does not compensate for the undocumented is_daytime and moon_phase_waxing parameters. The mention of 'for each planet' only touches the planets array, leaving key inputs like bhava, speed, and average_speed unexplained in both the schema and description, so an agent has limited semantic guidance for preparing valid input.

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 'Compute' with a precise resource ('full six-fold Shadbala') and enumerates exactly which components are calculated (Sthana, Dig, Kala, Cheshta, Naisargika, Drik Bala, plus uccha_bala, ishta_phala, kashta_phala). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like compute_panchanga or compute_dasha, and the BPHS Ch.27-28 reference anchors its 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 makes it reasonably clear that this tool is for Shadbala computations, so an agent can infer when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the compute_* siblings, leaving the agent to infer the decision only from the tool name and output list.

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