Pitra Dosha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context on top: it confirms birth data alone computes everything, mentions the exact classical combinations covered, and links to a full output/error contract. It does not contradict 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 structured with WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH sections, making it easy to scan. It includes a documentation URL for full details. It is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary, but every section earns its place.

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 description covers prerequisites (none), downstream workflow, sibling disambiguation, and points to a full output/error contract URL. Combined with the rich input schema, annotations, and output schema, the agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents all parameters and nested properties. The description only restates the birth contract at a high level and does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Detects and analyses Pitru Dosha' using all five classical combinations. It also explicitly differentiates itself from asterwise_get_doshas, saying that sibling returns less detail. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit routing guidance: 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH asterwise_get_doshas' and 'Use this tool when dedicated Pitru Dosha analysis is needed.' It also provides a workflow context, noting that puja suggestions come after via asterwise_get_puja_suggestions. This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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