Remedies for a birth chart

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, yet the description adds real value: it enumerates the exact conditions that trigger a graha selection and explains that `checked` returns every graha's Shadbala versus requirement and every dosha's result. It also discloses the cost tier (20 credits, Tier 2). It does not discuss pagination or response size, which keeps it from 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the purpose leads, then the selection rules, then the `checked` output note and the coordinate requirement. The middle sentence is long and packs many dosha names, but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 needn't be fully described, and the description still explains what `checked` contains and which doshas are evaluated. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and existing annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only sibling routing is missing.

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 the schema already documents the birth-data fields, timezone handling and houseSystem letters. The description adds only the constraint that coordinates are required here (no default) and that targetDate drives Sade Sati, but says nothing about the `types` filter parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: finds weak/afflicted grahas and present doshas in a sidereal chart and returns their remedies with selection reasons. It also spells out the selection criteria (Shadbala below BPHS 27.32-33, debilitation, combustion, named doshas). It never distinguishes itself from the sibling remedies_by_graha / by_dosha / by_type tools, so it stops short of 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 implied by 'Coordinates are required' and by the chart-based selection logic, and targetDate's role for Sade Sati is noted. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement pointing at the sibling remedy tools, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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