Lal Kitab: Sleeping houses

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 useful operational context (POST endpoint, required fields, 20-credit Tier 2 cost), but says nothing about output shape, whether an empty result is possible, or how the dormant planets are reported; the existence of an output schema lowers that burden further.

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 concept sentence is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required fields, cost) is compact and scannable. There is no filler, though the definition is cautiously worded rather than action-first.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with three enums and very low schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without guidance on the cryptic houseSystem codes, the meaning of cosmogram, or how this differs from the other Lal Kitab analysis siblings. The output schema and annotations cover returns and safety, but the input-side completeness gap is substantial for a 20-credit call.

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 should compensate — but it only re-lists the four already-required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude). Undocumented parameters such as city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, and especially houseSystem (25 single-letter codes) and ayanamsaId receive no explanation in either place.

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 defines the Lal Kitab 'sleeping house' concept precisely (a planet in its pakka ghar with no companions or aspects, hence dormant), which lets an agent distinguish this from generic Vedic chart tools and from the sibling astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_blind_house. However, it never states the action ('returns/computes the sleeping houses for a birth chart'), leaving the verb implicit in the title.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or of when to prefer astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_blind_house, astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_remedies, or astroway_vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_full instead. The clause 'remedies activate them' gestures at a related workflow but does not explicitly route the agent to a remedies tool.

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