Doshas: Lal Kitab full summary

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 non-schema information: the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2), the POST endpoint, and the required input set — cost in particular is a real decision factor for a paid computation tool. It does not cover failure behavior or latency.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the payload, then bracketed metadata blocks for group/endpoint/required/cost. No filler, easy to scan, though the parameter naming of the components is slightly cryptic without domain knowledge.

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 needn't be explained, and purpose/required inputs/cost are covered. But for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage and five-plus enums, the description leaves an agent guessing about house system, zodiac type, and ayanamsa defaults — a meaningful gap for an expensive composite calculation.

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 params, so the description must compensate, and it does not — it merely restates the four required fields the schema already marks as required. Highly consequential optional parameters such as houseSystem (25 single-letter enum codes with no schema description), zodiacType, cosmogram, and ayanamsaId are left wholly unexplained, and the sidereal ayanamsa choice matters a lot for Lal Kitab output.

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 verb+resource (composite Lal Kitab dosha summary) and enumerates exactly what is aggregated: manglik, kalsarpa, pitra, shrapit, 6 Rin, and a kismat score. That enumeration distinguishes it from the single-dosha siblings (astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_manglik, _pitra, _rin, etc.), though it never states the aggregation relationship 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 by the word 'Composite' — an agent can infer this is the all-in-one call versus the per-dosha siblings, but nothing says when to prefer the full summary over a targeted single-dosha check, and there are no preconditions or exclusions stated.

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