Doshas: KP Kalasarpa

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the one genuinely new behavioral fact: 20 credits at Tier 2, useful for cost control. It says nothing about how the dosha is determined (Rahu-Ketu axis containment rules) or any constraints on the input chart.

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?

One identifying sentence followed by four bracketed metadata lines; it is front-loaded and wastes no words. Brevity here comes at the cost of substance rather than from tight editing, but structurally it is clean.

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?

For a 13-parameter, 20-credit Vedic calculation the definition is thin: it omits how the KP Rahu sub-lord chain should influence parameter choice (e.g. selecting the kp ayanamsa), and leaves most optional parameters unexplained. The existence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the input-side gaps remain.

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 coverage is only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It merely restates the four required fields already in the schema's required array and adds no meaning for the nine optional ones (zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, ayanamsaId), some of which are critical to get a correct KP result.

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 resource (Kalasarpa dosha) plus the distinguishing modifier (KP Rahu sub-lord chain), which separates it from the plain Parashara/Lal Kitab Kalasarpa siblings and from astroway_vedic_doshas_kp_full. It is clear what the tool computes, though the term 'sub-lord chain attached' is left unexplained.

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 implied: the [Group: Vedic] and [Endpoint] tags indicate this is the KP-system Kalasarpa calculation. The description does not say when to pick this over astroway_vedic_doshas_kp_full (all KP doshas) or over the Parashara/Lal Kitab Kalasarpa variants, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a KP ayanamsa.

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