Doshas: Shrapit (curse)

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts the annotations do not carry: a 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the four mandatory inputs, which matter for call planning. It does not explain what happens if the dosha is absent, but the output schema exists to cover results.

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 definition sentence is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata lines are scannable rather than prose. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint line duplicates information the caller doesn't need to choose or invoke the tool.

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 needn't be described, and the core condition is stated. But for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, an agent gets no guidance on the defaults that materially change the result (house system, zodiac type, ayanamsa) nor on when this dosha check is the right call versus the full dosha family.

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. Beyond repeating the four required fields, the description adds no meaning for city, name, cosmogram, ayanamsaId, zodiacType, or houseSystem, several of which have no schema text either. Only ayanamsa and timezone are adequately documented, by the schema rather than the description.

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 names the specific dosha and defines its astronomical condition (Saturn + Rahu conjunct in any sign), so an agent can tell it apart from the other parashara dosha siblings. However, it never states the operative verb explicitly (detects/computes from a natal chart) and does not distinguish itself from astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_shrapit, which covers the same dosha in a different system.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as the lal_kitab shrapit variant or the parashara_full bundle that presumably also reports this dosha. The metadata block gives required inputs and cost, which is operational context, but not usage guidance.

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