Lal Kitab: Teva (fixed-house chart)

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 non-derivable behaviour: a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, the POST endpoint and required inputs, and a YELLOW caveat that Lal Kitab is single-school and results reflect K. Ashant + R.D. Mathur consensus — a substantive interpretive-scope disclosure. It does not disclose edge cases such as what happens if houseSystem or zodiacType conflict with a fixed-house chart.

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 dense sentences front-load the defining rule (house = sign, no ASC rotation) before the output contents and caveat, and the metadata block is terse. Little waste, though the 'YELLOW:' label is unexplained jargon an agent must guess at.

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 described. But with 13 parameters, three enums and 23% schema coverage, plus an existing ambiguity about whether ayanamsa or houseSystem change the result of a fixed-house chart, the description leaves real decision gaps for an agent constructing the 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 coverage is only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely does not: ayanamsa/ayanamsaId, zodiacType, cosmogram, houseSystem, name and city are all unexplained. It does list the four required parameters and the house=sign convention, which implicitly makes houseSystem irrelevant for this endpoint — a useful but incomplete hint.

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 specific artefact ('Lal Kitab teva: fixed-house chart') and defines its construction rule ('house = sign (Aries=1..Pisces=12), no ASC rotation'), which is exactly what separates it from the rotating-house siblings like astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_lal_kundali. It also enumerates the output content (planet sign, state, pakka-ghar flag). It stops short of naming a sibling as the explicit alternative, so not 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?

Usage is only implied: the fixed-house construction rule hints at when this chart is the right one, but there is no explicit 'use this when / not when' statement and no named alternative among the many Lal Kitab siblings (lal_kundali, blind_house, life_graph, planet_house_effect). The metadata block gives prerequisites (required date/time/lat/lon) but not selection guidance.

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