Doshas: Lal Kitab Shrapit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add non-safety context — and it does: endpoint, the four required inputs, and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which no annotation conveys. It also signals remedies appear in the response. Missing only things like whether a chart within a date range is required or how the dosha flag is expressed.

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 tight definitional sentence followed by a compact bracketed metadata block; the meaning lands immediately with no filler. The metadata block is dense but each line (group, endpoint, required, cost) is actionable.

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, and cost/endpoint are covered. But for a 13-parameter chart-calculation tool with weak schema descriptions, the agent is left guessing which optional parameters matter (ayanamsa, houseSystem, zodiacType) when the required set alone may not produce the expected sect/ayanamsa default.

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; roughly nine optional fields (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId) carry no documentation in either the schema or the description. The description only restates the four required parameters that the schema's required array already lists, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the specific dosha (Shrapit) and its technical definition — Saturn conjunct Rahu/Ketu — plus the tradition marker 'per LK', which separates it from astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_shrapit. The verb is implicit (compute an assessment), but the resource is precise enough for an agent to pick it confidently.

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 to reach for this tool versus lal_kitab_full, lal_kitab_remedies, or the Parashara variant. The only implicit routing cue is 'per LK', which requires the agent to already know the sibling landscape to interpret.

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