Remedies for one dosha

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to spend its words on payload semantics: it explains that `classicalStatus` distinguishes classical from non-classical doshas, that `specific` carries rites and their original targets, and that `detection` names the chart-check route. That is genuine interpretive context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention cost (5 credits) or result size.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource, which is good, but the middle is one very dense clause chaining four output fields with heavy domain jargon (BPHS 83, BPHS 91). It is information-rich rather than wasteful, yet a bulleted breakdown of the four fields would scan faster.

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, return values did not need describing, yet the description supplies field-level interpretation anyway, making the tool quite callable. The remaining gap is routing between this tool and its three remedies siblings, plus the credit cost, which lives only in the metadata block.

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 100%, so a 3 is the baseline; the description goes slightly further by spelling out the dosha vocabulary in prose and clarifying that `type` accepts a single type or comma list with 'all types when omitted.' Most of that duplicates the schema, so the gain over baseline is modest.

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 resource ('Remedies of one dosha') and enumerates the dosha domain inline, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the 'by-graha', 'by-type', or 'catalogue' siblings, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 required `dosha` parameter signals 'use this when you have a specific dosha in hand,' and the optional `type` filter is noted. There is no statement of when to prefer this over astroway_vedic_remedies_by_graha or _by_type, which is a real ambiguity given the overlapping subject matter.

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