Doshas: Lal Kitab Rin (6 ancestral debts)

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: a 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the endpoint. It says nothing about result shape or what 'active count' means, which is a modest gap given the output schema exists.

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 core computation, then a compact bracketed metadata block for group, endpoint, required inputs, and cost. No filler sentences, though the [Required] line duplicates schema information.

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?

For a tool with 13 parameters and low schema description coverage, the definition is thin on how the optional astrological settings affect the Rin calculation. It is adequate on safety (annotations) and cost, and the output schema relieves it of explaining returns, but the parameter gap keeps it only minimally sufficient.

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 needs to compensate and does not. It restates the four required fields (already in the schema's required list) and says nothing about the nine optional parameters such as ayanamsa, timezone, timezoneOffset, houseSystem, zodiacType, 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 computation: an aggregate of all six named Rin types (Pitri/Stree/Kanya/Atma/Rishi/Daiva) with an active count. It also distinguishes itself from the near-identical /lal-kitab/debts engine by noting the dosha framing, so an agent can separate it from astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_debts and the single-Rin siblings.

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?

"Same engine as /lal-kitab/debts but framed as dosha" implies when to prefer this variant, but it never states an explicit when/when-not rule or names the sibling tool. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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