Lal Kitab Remedies

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it lists per-planet stressed analysis, priority tiers, specific action row categories (remedy, donation, keep, avoid), and points to the output/error contract.

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 purpose, then organized into compact WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH sections. Each section earns its place, and there is no redundancy with annotations or schema.

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 tool has an output schema, so return-value details are already covered. The description supplies workflow context, alternative tool routing, input contract, and a link to the full output/error contract, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the input contract 'BirthData only', which is useful but does not provide any additional meaning beyond the schema; 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 opens with a specific verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('Lal Kitab style totkas per stressed planet'), and specifies the output shape (priority tiers and typed action rows). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from asterwise_get_remedies and asterwise_get_gemstone_recommendations, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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 WORKFLOW section gives a concrete before-step ('asterwise_get_lal_kitab_chart') and an explicit AFTER: None, and the DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names alternatives and their differentiating focus. This makes when-to-use and when-not-to-use unambiguous.

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