Lal Kitab: Varshphal (annual)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful traits beyond that: a 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the caveat that the solar-return JD is "approximate", warning the agent not to treat it as exact. It stops short of saying whether the result is cacheable or how heavy the call is.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler, plus compact metadata lines for group, endpoint and cost. Slightly compressed prose ("dasha house + approximate solar-return JD") takes a re-read, but nothing is wasted.

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 and the heavily annotated nested body schema carries input detail, so the description need not re-explain either. What remains missing is routing context against the Lal Kitab and Varshaphal siblings, which is the one thing an agent could still get wrong when calling this 20-credit endpoint.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by giving `age` meaning the schema does not: it drives position in a running 35-year cycle, which tells the agent why an age is required on top of the natal birth data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lal Kitab annual progression at given `age`") and names the two outputs (dasha house from the 35-year cycle, approximate solar-return JD). It is clearly distinct from most siblings, but never contrasts itself with the near-name-twins astroway_vedic_varshaphal (Parashara annual chart) or astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_dasha.

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, or alternative-selection guidance. The phrase "for full annual chart casting" hints at context but leaves the agent to infer whether this is a standalone answer or a building block to be combined with other Lal Kitab tools.

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