Remedies

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. Description adds a full output/error contract URL and clarifies it returns tables, which is consistent. No contradictions; the error contract link provides extra context beyond 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?

Description is somewhat verbose with multiple labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE, plus a URL). However, the sections are structured and each adds distinct value; the main purpose is front-loaded. Slightly wordy but acceptable for the 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 the tool's complexity (nested birth object, two parameters, many siblings), the description is complete: it provides workflow context, clarifies input contract, contrasts with similar tools, and points to full output/error documentation. An agent has enough information to use this 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%—every field and sub-field has a detailed description with examples. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the 'BirthData follows the global contract' note, which simply references a shared structure already fully documented in the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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?

States precisely what it does: derives classical remedial prescriptions from planetary weakness and dusthana lordship, returning mantra, lifestyle, charity, and dignity tables. Explicitly contrasts with sibling tools (lal_kitab_remedies and gemstone_recommendations) to avoid confusion.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: recommends getting natal chart first and optionally following with gemstone recommendations. Also clearly states what this tool is NOT for (household Lal Kitab totkas, gemstone-only), giving clear when-to-use vs. 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.