Lal Kitab: Planet-in-house effect

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description focuses on what the annotations can't say: only Sun placements have real content, 8 planets return placeholder text, and the corpus is a pending Phase 3 task. It also discloses cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the POST endpoint, which are genuinely useful behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 substantive content comes first (what it returns, then the two parameter encodings), followed by compact bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, required fields, and cost. No filler sentences; the parentheses are dense but each clause carries 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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description supplies the pieces that matter for correctness: parameter encoding, the partial-data limit, and the credit cost. What remains is only the planet-index-to-name mapping, a modest gap for a 2-parameter read tool.

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 0% and the schema itself is unconstrained — planet is a bare integer bounded only by ±2^53 — so the description is doing real work by specifying '(0..6, 11=Rahu, 100=Ketu)' and 'house (1..12)'. It doesn't map 1..6 to specific planets, so the encoding is only partially spelled out, but it is the sole source of the valid domain.

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 first sentence names a specific resource and verb: a short summary of a (planet, house) placement per Lal Kitab. It is distinguishable from siblings like astroway_reports_lal_kitab (full report) or astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_full (doshas), though it never explicitly points at those alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many other Lal Kitab tools. The one strong usage signal is the coverage caveat ('Currently Sun-only full data; remaining 8 planets are placeholder text'), which tells the agent when the tool will return useful output, but that is a data caveat rather than selection guidance.

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