Doshas: KP full summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: a cost of 20 credits (Tier 2) and the endpoint, which helps an agent weigh this against five cheaper single-dosha calls. It does not explain how the composite is assembled or whether partial results are returned when a dosha doesn't apply.

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?

Two sentences of substance followed by four compact bracketed metadata lines. The composite contents and the Sade-Sati caveat are front-loaded; nothing redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the required inputs and cost are stated. But for a 13-parameter tool with 23% coverage, an agent still lacks an explanation of which optional parameters actually change the dosha computation (ayanamsa school, house system) versus being boilerplate chart settings.

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. The description adds nothing beyond restating the four required fields that the schema already marks as required; it is silent on ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, and the ayanamsaId/timezone interplay. For a low-coverage schema the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 composite resource (KP dosha summary) and enumerates exactly which doshas it aggregates: manglik, kalasarpa, pitra, kemadruma, plus a Sade-Sati pointer. Since sibling tools exist for each individual dosha (kp_manglik, kp_kalasarpa, kp_pitra, kp_kemadruma), the 'composite summary' framing lets an agent pick this over the per-dosha tools without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the Sade-Sati case away: it needs an explicit targetDate and must be called at /sade-sati separately. That is a concrete when-not-to-use instruction naming the alternative. What's missing is guidance on when to prefer this composite over calling the individual kp_* dosha siblings one at a time.

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