Lal Kitab: Blind houses (Andha bhava)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations lack: HTTP endpoint, required inputs, and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost. It still says nothing about what the response contains or how house-system choice affects the result, but the cost and endpoint disclosure is real added value.

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-loaded with the definitional criterion, then a compact bracketed metadata block for group, endpoint, required params, and cost. Every line carries information; nothing is padded.

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 no explanation, and the cost/endpoint metadata helps. But for a 13-parameter request with thin schema coverage, the description leaves an agent guessing about the optional configuration parameters that materially affect which houses are flagged.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 23% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it merely restates the four required fields already marked required in the schema. The most consequential knobs (houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId) get no explanation of how they change the blind-house determination.

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?

Names a specific astrological computation: houses with no planet and no Parashari aspect, in the Lal Kitab system, plus what that condition means. An agent can tell this apart from most siblings, though it never distinguishes itself from the closely related astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_sleeping_house.

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 only implied: the note that blind houses indicate karmic 'unilluminated' areas 'where remedies are essential' hints at a follow-up with a Lal Kitab remedies tool, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is stated.

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