Shadbala: Dig (directional)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world surface, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description's genuine additions are the cost disclosure (20 credits, Tier 2) and the explicit required-input set, which help an agent budget and pre-validate a call. It says nothing further about determinism, response size, or what happens with missing birth data, so credit is moderate.

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?

The substantive definition is two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the bracketed metadata lines (group, endpoint, required, cost) are scannable rather than prose padding. Slightly dense notation ('60v', 'kendra') assumes domain fluency, 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, so return-value explanation is not owed. However, for a 13-parameter endpoint at 23% schema coverage, the description does not establish that the four required inputs are a birth moment (and that ayanamsa/house system choices materially change the result), nor does it place this component within the six-bala total. It is adequate to identify the tool but thin for calling it confidently.

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 is expected to compensate — and it does not. It repeats the four required fields already declared in the schema's required array and leaves city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, date and time formats entirely unexplained. The only real semantic contribution is the explanation of the Dig Bala gradient, which describes the output rather than the inputs.

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 the specific quantity computed (Dig Bala, directional strength) and even defines its scoring model — 60 virupas at the preferred kendra cusp, 0 at the opposite point, linear in between — plus the per-planet direction mappings. It is unmistakably a single Shadbala component calculation rather than a generic chart tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling astroway_vedic_shadbala_full or the other five bala components, which is the only thing separating it from 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus astroway_vedic_shadbala_full (which presumably returns all six balas) or the other five component endpoints (sthana, kala, cheshta, naisargika, drik). The [Required: date, time, latitude, longitude] line is invocation data, not usage guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that this returns only the directional component.

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