Shadbala: Drik (aspectual)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: a credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2), the POST endpoint, and the exact drishti weighting rules including Mercury/Jupiter super-addition, which pre-empts questions about the aggregation logic. It does not disclose response shape or whether values are normalized/ranked, so it sits at adequate rather than rich.

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 formula and drishti rules are front-loaded and dense with meaning; the bracketed group/endpoint/required/cost block is structured metadata rather than prose. Only the '[Required: ...]' line duplicates what the schema already declares, a minor waste.

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?

For a 13-parameter, output-schema-backed computation this is borderline: the mathematical definition and cost are covered, and the output schema carries the return contract, but nothing explains how the optional chart-configuration parameters interact with this specific bala or what a caller should do about ayanamsa/zodiac choice. Adequate to invoke, thin for invoking correctly.

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 only 23% across 13 params, and the description compensates only by restating the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) already enumerated in the schema's required array. Sensitive inputs like ayanamsa/ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone vs timezoneOffset, and cosmogram are never mentioned, so an agent gets no signal about defaults that materially change the computed drik bala (e.g., sidereal vs tropical).

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 computation: 'Drik Bala, net aspectual strength' with the exact BPHS formula, so an agent knows precisely what value is produced. The title plus 'Shadbala: Drik (aspectual)' places it within the shadbala family, but the description never names the siblings (shadbala_full, sthana, dig, kala, cheshta, naisargika) it is a component of, so differentiation relies on the reader knowing the domain.

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 vs when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives; there is no hint that astroway_vedic_shadbala_full returns the aggregate or that the other five bala tools cover different components. The agent must infer from the doctrinal formula alone that this is one of six strength components requiring a birth chart context.

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