Shadbala: full summary

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 only needs to add context. It does: cost of 20 credits (Tier 2), the endpoint, and the 'single call' bundling that replaces six component calls — the cost/one-shot detail is genuinely useful for planning.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata is compact, but the mixed Ukrainian/English phrasing ('всі 6 типів strength') is confusing, and the [Endpoint]/[Group] lines are largely redundant with tooling metadata.

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 explained, and the description names the key outputs (Virupa, Rupa totals). But for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, the description omits any guidance on the optional ayanamsa/zodiac/house-system/timezone inputs that materially change results.

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%, and 9 of 13 parameters (city, name, date, time, latitude, longitude, ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram) carry no schema text. The description only restates the four required field names already marked required in the schema and adds no meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: combined Shadbala returning all 6 strength types plus total Virupa and Rupa per planet, plus 'Single call'. It implicitly contrasts with the six per-component siblings (sthana, dig, kala, cheshta, naisargika, drik) but never names them, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Useful for Vedic chart strength dashboards' suggests a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no pointer to the six single-component tools. An agent must guess whether to call this or the granular siblings.

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