Doshas: KP Manglik

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the endpoint, the four required inputs, and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which matters for quota-aware invocation.

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 front-loaded sentences capture the what and the differentiator, followed by a compact metadata block. No filler or restatement of the title, though the bracketed metadata could be slightly tighter.

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 need not be explained. However, for a domain-specific dosha variant with several near-identical siblings, the description gives no gloss on what a Manglik result means or how the KP computation differs materially — leaving an agent to infer the distinction from naming alone.

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%, so the schema does not fully carry the load, yet the description just repeats the four required parameter names rather than explaining any of them. The heavy parameters (timezone, timezoneOffset, ayanamsa) do have good inline schema descriptions, which keeps this at an adequate 3 rather than lower.

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?

The description names a specific deliverable — the Manglik dosha computed with KP sub-lord precision — and adds what the KP variant contributes (Mars sub-lord chain for transit-trigger analysis). That distinguishes it from the Parashara and Lal Kitab manglik siblings, though it never names those alternatives 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 implied: an agent can infer you would pick this over astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_mangal when KP precision matters, but the description never states that condition or any exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or when a plain manglik check (astroway_vedic_compatibility_manglik_check) would suffice.

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