Shadbala: Cheshta (motional)

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing accuracy limits: the model is simplified (not full BPHS Cheshta-Kendra), the Sun and Moon return zero, and divergence versus jhora is bounded at ≤30v on non-stationary dates. That is exactly the kind of trust-calibration context an agent cannot get from structured fields. It stops short of describing result structure, though an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition and accuracy caveat, then compact bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, required fields, and credit cost. The formula notation (ratio*60, (2-ratio)*60) is terse and slightly cryptic, but no sentence is padding.

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 no explanation, and the accuracy caveat covers the biggest risk. What is missing is placement in the Shadbala family — whether this is a component feeding a total, and how it relates to shadbala_full — which an agent needs in order to pick correctly among the seven sibling bala tools.

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 must compensate — and it does not. It only echoes the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) as a metadata tag and says nothing about ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, or the timezone/timezoneOffset interplay that the schema itself flags as tricky.

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 precisely what is computed: Cheshta Bala, the motional-strength component of Shadbala, including the exact scoring model used. It does not differentiate itself from the six sibling shadbala_* tools (dig, drik, kala, naisargika, sthana, full), so an agent must infer from the name alone which component it needs.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance appears; nothing says to call astroway_vedic_shadbala_full when all six balas are wanted, or that this tool returns only one component. The only routing hint is incidental — Sun=0 and Moon=0 are 'handled via Ayana/Paksha' — which implies other tools cover those planets but never names them.

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