Doshas: Parashara full report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's main added behavioral value is the cost disclosure ('20 credits (Tier 2)') and the endpoint. It says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or what happens on partial detector failure, so the transparency gain beyond annotations is modest.

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-loads the purpose in the first clause, then packs group, endpoint, required params, and cost into compact bracketed metadata. Dense but readable, with no filler sentences, though the 'Required:' line is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameter semantics undocumented. It does state that an output schema exists (so return values are covered), but the large parameter surface and batch-of-six-detectors behavior are under-explained relative to the tool's complexity.

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%, and 13 parameters exist, so the description should compensate by explaining the many undocumented fields (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId). Instead it only restates the four required params already listed in the schema, adding no semantics for the nine undocumented ones.

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 and resource ('Combined Parashara dosha report') and enumerates exactly which six detectors it runs (Mangal/Kaal Sarp/Pitru/Shrapit/Grahan/Guru-Chandal). This clearly distinguishes it from the individual parashara_mangal, parashara_kaal_sarp, etc. siblings, which an agent can map without opening the schema.

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 word 'Combined' and 'runs all 6 detectors' implicitly signals this is the batch alternative to the six individual dosha tools. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over the single-detector calls, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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