Doshas: KP Kemadruma

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, so the description correctly focuses on what it adds: the cost (20 credits, Tier 2), the computation rule, and that a Moon-isolation flag and KP Moon sub-lord chain come back. That cost disclosure is genuinely useful context not present in any structured field.

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?

Three compact sentences: the rule first, then what the flag means, then what extra output is attached. No filler; the bracketed operational metadata is scannable and separated from the semantic prose.

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 and annotations exist, so the description need not explain return format in depth, and the rule + cost are adequate for calling it. However, for a 13-parameter Vedic tool with low schema coverage, the absence of any note on ayanamsa/zodiac conventions (important for a KP-specific computation) leaves an agent guessing on defaults.

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 needs to compensate and does not. It merely repeats the four required fields (already declared in the schema's required array) and adds nothing about ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, or cosmogram, leaving several enum/optional params unexplained in both places.

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 the exact detection rule for Kemadruma yoga ('no planet excluding Sun, Rahu, Ketu in 2nd or 12th from Moon'), which is a specific, verifiable computation rather than a restatement of the name. The KP sub-lord chain and Moon-isolation flag output distinguish it from generic yoga tools like kp_full, though the sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus astroway_vedic_doshas_kp_full or the other KP dosha siblings (kalasarpa, manglik, pitra, sade_sati). The bracket block lists prerequisites (required params, cost) but never says when this dosha check is the right choice or that kp_full bundles it.

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