Doshas: Lal Kitab Pitra

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive computation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the credit cost (20, Tier 2), the group, and that the result contains triggers and a remedy. It does not say anything about computation dependencies or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential identity sentence, followed by structured bracketed metadata that is easy to scan. Nearly zero waste; the 'Required' line is the only redundant element since the schema already enforces those fields.

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 described, and the timezone/timezoneOffset parameters are well documented in the schema itself. Still, for a 13-parameter chart computation the description leaves the agent without disambiguation from the Parashara/KP Pitra variants or guidance on the optional calculation settings.

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 restates the four required fields that the schema already marks required, and says nothing about ayanamsa selection, zodiacType, houseSystem, or cosmogram.

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 resource (Pitri Rin / paternal-debt dosha) computed under a named system (Lal Kitab) and what it returns (triggers + remedy). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_rin, astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_pitru, or astroway_vedic_doshas_kp_pitra, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. With three parallel Pitra dosha tools (Lal Kitab, Parashara, KP) plus a broader Lal Kitab 'rin' tool, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap; the only implicit cue is the 'per Lal Kitab patterns' phrase.

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