Bhava Bala: house strength

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

Annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed computation, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real context beyond them: components are returned separately, rank plus strongest/weakest house are included, the result is a POST endpoint, and it carries a concrete cost of 20 credits (Tier 2) — cost disclosure is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to call.

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 core definition is front-loaded in the first sentence with the returned fields in the second; the bracketed metadata block is compact and scannable. It is jargon-dense but every clause names a distinct component, so nothing reads as filler.

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?

Return-value details are unnecessary since an output schema exists, and the annotations cover safety. But for a 13-parameter tool at 23% schema coverage, the description leaves meaningful ambiguity about sidereal defaults and house system that matter to correctness of a Vedic calculation.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — it repeats only the four required fields already in the schema. Optional but consequential inputs (zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, city/name) are left with no explanation anywhere in the description, so an agent gets no guidance on sidereal vs tropical or house-system choice for a Vedic calculation.

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 a specific verb+resource (strength of the twelve houses) and enumerates the three computed components (Bhavadhipati, Bhava Digbala, Bhava Drishti Bala), including the BPHS source chapter. It implicitly separates itself from the planetary shadbala siblings by scope (houses, not planets), but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only inferable: an agent can deduce this is the house-strength counterpart to the planetary shadbala tools, but the description never says when to choose it over astroway_vedic_shadbala_full or the various bhava/house siblings. The 'Required: date, time, latitude, longitude' line is the only concrete call prerequisite surfaced.

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