Doshas: Mangal (Mars affliction)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral substance beyond that: exactly which houses count per school, and the cancellation rules (own/exalted sign, per-house sign cancellations) that determine the returned verdict. It stops short of stating anything about output shape or confidence, but with an output schema present that is not required.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the density is appropriate for a domain-specific astrological calculation. However, the bulk of the text is devoted to a parameter absent from the schema, and the school clause is one long run-on separated by semicolons that is harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

With 13 parameters, only four required, and a low schema coverage of 23%, completeness demands more than this. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the dosha logic is well covered. But the missing `school` parameter versus the documented one, plus silent required geolocation/time inputs, leaves an agent unable to reconcile the description with the schema.

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 must compensate, and it largely does not: date, time, latitude, longitude, timezone, timezoneOffset, ayanamsa and houseSystem receive no mention. Worse, it spends its entire parameter discussion on a `school` body param that does not exist in the input schema, which is actively misleading about how to invoke the tool. The cancellation rules also reference house/sign logic but not the parameters that feed them.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Mangal Dosha detection") and explains the school variants that change the calculation. It implies the Parashara/BPHS lineage through the verse citations, which plausibly separates it from the sibling kp_manglik and lal_kitab_manglik tools, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 school breakdown (strict/north/south, default south) is genuine guidance for choosing an option, but it is framed as parameter enumeration rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement about when to pick this Parashara tool over astroway_vedic_doshas_kp_manglik, astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_manglik, or astroway_vedic_compatibility_manglik_check, all of which sit in the same conceptual space.

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