Lal Kitab: Kismat (fortune indicator)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information not in annotations: a 20-credit (Tier 2) cost and a deterministic scoring formula, which lets an agent predict the output shape. It says nothing about precision limits, sensitivity to the ayanamsa/house-system choice, or failure modes.

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 scoring rubric leads, followed by four bracketed metadata lines, so an agent gets the substantive content first with no wasted prose. The metadata block is somewhat mechanical but each line (endpoint, required fields, cost) carries distinct information.

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 not be explained, and the required-parameter and cost lines cover the operational basics. But for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without guidance on the optional astrological configuration parameters that determine the result, which is a real completeness gap.

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. The description restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude), which the schema's required array already conveys, and adds nothing about the nine optional parameters — notably houseSystem (25 enum values), zodiacType, cosmogram, and ayanamsaId, all of which materially change a Lal Kitab computation. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 a concrete artifact — a Lal Kitab fortune score — and even discloses the scoring rubric (+2 pakka ghar, +1 own sign, +2 exalted, -2 debilitated), which tells an agent exactly what output to expect. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings such as astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_prosperity or astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_life_graph, so the agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 statement of when to choose this over the many other Lal Kitab endpoints (prosperity, life_graph, lal_kundali, debts). The only contextual lines are mechanical: group, endpoint URL, required params, and cost. An agent could not decide between this and astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_prosperity using the description alone.

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