Doshas: KP Sade Sati

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the computational model (7.5-year cycle, sub-lord chain output) and the cost tier of 20 credits, which is useful, but says nothing about error conditions or what happens when the target date falls outside an active phase.

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 dense sentences front-load the definition and return shape, followed by compact structured metadata lines for group, endpoint and cost. Every element earns its place, though the bracketed metadata is boilerplate rather than description 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 exists, so return values need no explanation; the annotations cover the read-only, idempotent nature. Combined with an explicit definition of the transit window and the phase-plus-sub-lord output, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, and the nested body schema already explains birth data, timezone handling and the ayanamsa choice in detail. The description only names targetDate and implies that natal data is required, adding little beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Sade Sati state at targetDate') and defines the underlying computation — Saturn transiting the 12th/1st/2nd from natal Moon — so an agent knows precisely what is returned. No other sibling in the catalogue offers Sade Sati, so explicit sibling differentiation isn't needed, though it also isn't provided.

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 implied by the specificity of the term: call this when the user asks about Sade Sati. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over the broader alternatives such as astroway_vedic_doshas_kp_full, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the schema's natal-plus-target-date structure.

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