Doshas: Grahan (eclipse-like)

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot convey: the 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the four required inputs. It does not mention whether a null result means 'no dosha present', which would have pushed it higher.

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?

The dosha definition is front-loaded and precise, followed by a compact metadata block with no filler. The bracketed metadata lines are boilerplate but each carries actionable information (group, endpoint, required inputs, cost).

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 13-parameter computation tool with only 23% schema coverage, the description leaves an agent unsure how the optional time/place/zodiac parameters affect the result.

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?

Only the four required parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude) are named, and no format, default or effect is explained. With 13 parameters and 23% schema description coverage, several inputs (city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId) are undocumented in both places, and the description does nothing to compensate.

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 exact condition that constitutes the dosha (Sun+node or Moon+node conjunction) and enumerates the four sub-patterns, which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling Parashara dosha tools such as mangal, kaal_sarp or pitru. It never uses a verb like 'compute' or 'evaluate', so the action itself is only implied by the endpoint path.

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?

Group and endpoint tags place it in the Vedic dosha family, and the definition implies when the result is relevant, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or naming of an alternative such as astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_full for a combined reading. Usage is left to inference from the name and group.

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