Lal Kitab: Rin (6 ancestral debts)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: what each rin returns (trigger conditions plus a recommended remedy), the interpretive lineage (K. Ashant Vol. IV, R.D. Mathur), and a concrete cost of 20 credits (Tier 2) that matters for invocation decisions.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the bracketed group/endpoint/required/cost lines are scannable metadata rather than filler. The only mild redundancy is repeating the required parameters that the schema already enforces.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description does say what is computed and what each result contains. However, for a 13-parameter natal tool with thin schema coverage, it should say more about which inputs actually matter (e.g., that Lahiri is the default sidereal school) to be safely callable without guessing.

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 needs to compensate and does not. Its '[Required: date, time, latitude, longitude]' line merely restates what the schema already marks required, and it says nothing about ayanamsa choice, timezone handling, house system, or the optional name/city/cosmogram flags.

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 a specific verb ('Detects') and a well-defined resource — six named ancestral debts (Pitri/Stree/Kanya/Atma/Rishi/Daiva Rin) computed from Lal Kitab planet-affliction patterns, with cited source texts. The purpose is unmistakable, though with siblings like astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_rin and astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_remedies in the catalog, it never says how it differs from those overlapping tools.

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 description lists required inputs and cost but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text alone whether to call this or the dedicated Lal Kitab rin/remedies dosha tools; only the name implies it is the natal-chart-based debt reading.

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