Doshas: Pitru (ancestral)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely valuable disclosure that canonical detection (9th-lord placement, malefic in 9H) is not yet implemented. It also surfaces cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and required inputs, both beyond annotations. A brief note on response shape is absent but the output schema covers it.

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 detection criteria, then the important coverage caveat, then a compact bracketed metadata block for group/endpoint/required/cost. Every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is repeating required parameters already in 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 partially-implemented detection endpoint, the description covers scope, known limitations, cost, and required inputs, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The remaining gap is guidance on which calculation parameters (ayanamsa, house system) to choose, which matters for a house-placement-based dosha.

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 largely does not. It restates only the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) and says nothing about ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, or the timezoneOffset/timezone interaction that materially affects results.

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 concretely what is detected (Sun+Rahu, Sun+Saturn conjunctions, Sun in 9H) and anchors the method to BPHS/Parashara, so the agent knows it is the Parashara-lineage Pitru dosha rather than KP or Lal Kitab. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like astroway_vedic_doshas_kp_pitra or astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_pitra, leaving that routing to the name.

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?

Usage is implied by the dosha name and the caveat that only 3 of 14 cited patterns are implemented, which usefully tells the agent not to over-claim completeness. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative endpoint for fuller or cross-system dosha checks.

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