Lal Kitab: Sukh (prosperity yoga)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: a specific endpoint, the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, and the required input set — the cost line in particular matters for an agent budgeting calls. It says nothing about default conventions (e.g. Lahiri when ayanamsa is omitted), so not a 5.

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 formula is front-loaded in the first sentence with the interpretation rule immediately after, and the bracketed metadata lines are terse and scannable. The telegraphic 'LK fixed' shorthand costs a little clarity, but nothing is padding.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and the formula plus 'higher = more prosperity yoga' gives enough to interpret the score. What's missing is the input-convention guidance an agent needs for a 13-parameter birth-chart tool (timezone vs. offset, ayanamsa defaulting) and any routing against the large Vedic sibling set.

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%, and the description only restates the four required parameters already listed in the schema's 'required' array. It adds no meaning for timezone, timezoneOffset, ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, or cosmogram — notably it never says the calculation is sidereal/Lahiri by default, which the optional enum allows an agent to override incorrectly.

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 gives a precise, testable definition of the computation: count Moon/Mercury/Venus/Jupiter in houses 2/5/9/11, +2 each, higher = stronger dhana yoga. The 'LK' framing plus 'LK fixed' houses distinguishes it from the Parashara/Jaimini dhana-yoga siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly as alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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 reach for this vs. the many other prosperity/money tools (astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_dhana, jaimini_dhana, astroway_financial_wealth_house, astroway_reports_money, astroway_reports_lal_kitab). 'Higher = more prosperity yoga' explains the output, not the usage decision. An agent must infer the context itself.

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