Lal Kitab: Life graph (age-by-age)

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is off the description's plate. The description adds real operational context the annotations cannot supply: the POST endpoint, the exact required input set, and a 20-credit Tier-2 cost that lets an agent reason about budget before calling.

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?

Two sentences of prose plus a bracketed metadata block; the purpose is front-loaded before the endpoint and cost lines. The '[Required: ...]' line partly duplicates the schema's required array, but it is cheap to scan and earns its place for a 13-parameter 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 need no prose explanation, and the cost, endpoint, and required inputs are all present. The gap is that a 13-parameter tool gets no guidance on the optional calculation settings (ayanamsa, house system, zodiac type), leaving the agent to rely on schema defaults.

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 23% across 13 parameters, so the schema does little heavy lifting for most fields. The description at least enumerates the four required parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude), but says nothing about the nine optional ones (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone, cosmogram) or when to override their defaults.

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 verb and resource ('Year-by-year (age 0..35) Lal Kitab dasha snapshot') and specifies the three things returned: the running house, its ruler, and the ruler's current chart state. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many Lal Kitab siblings (astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_dasha, _kismat, _varshphal), so an agent must infer the difference from the age-range framing 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?

'Use as a rough timing index' gives a genuine usage context and implicitly signals this is not a precision tool. However, it never states when not to use it or which sibling offers the precise dasha timeline, which matters given the dense Lal Kitab family.

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