Doshas: KP Pitra

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema facts: the POST endpoint and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which an agent should know before invoking. It says nothing about rate limits, failure modes, or what happens if latitude/longitude are out of range.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by clearly bracketed metadata lines. The [Required: ...] line duplicates the schema's required array and is slightly wasteful, but nothing else is 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?

With 13 parameters, 3 enums, and only 23% schema coverage, this definition leaves most optional inputs unexplained, and the omission of the ayanamsa default is material for a KP tool. An output schema exists so return values need no description, and annotations cover safety, but for a paid (20-credit) 13-param calculation the input guidance is too thin.

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 must compensate and does not. It merely repeats the four required fields already listed in the schema and never explains ayanamsa, ayanamsaId, timezone vs timezoneOffset, houseSystem, zodiacType, or cosmogram. Notably it omits that the ayanamsa default is Lahiri even though this is a KP-specific tool, a trap an agent could easily fall into.

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?

Names the specific dosha (Pitra) and the specific computation variant (KP Sun sub-lord chain), which distinguishes it from the sibling Parashara Pitru and Lal Kitab Pitra tools. It never uses an explicit verb like 'compute' or 'analyze', but the resource and technique are unambiguous.

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?

The description never says when an agent should choose this over astroway_vedic_doshas_kp_full, astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_pitru, or astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_pitra. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned beyond the 'KP' qualifier embedded in the purpose line.

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