Shadbala: Ishta and Kashta phala

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add computational context, and it does: it discloses the actual formulas (Ishta as half the sum of shubha/ashubha rays; Kashta = 60 - Ishta; the geometric square-root variant), the BPHS 28.5-6 source, and the special-case treatment of the Sun's and Moon's Cheshta via the 28.4 kendra. The one gap is that the two named variants are never tied to a request parameter, so the agent cannot tell which formula a given call will apply.

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 output quantity is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information (classical definition, geometric definition, Sun/Moon edge case). It is dense but not padded; the main structural flaw is that `parashara` and `geometric` are introduced in backticks as if they were selectable options without saying how to select them.

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 not be described, and the mathematical behavior is well covered. However, for a 13-parameter calculation endpoint with 23% schema coverage, the description says nothing about the request inputs beyond naming the four required fields in context metadata. It is adequate to understand what the tool computes but not complete enough to guarantee a correctly formed call.

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 carries a heavy burden and contributes nothing about any parameter. It never explains date/time format expectations, latitude/longitude, ayanamsa versus ayanamsaId precedence, zodiacType, houseSystem, or the timezone/timezoneOffset interaction. The only parameter-adjacent statement is the reference to the cheshta endpoint for Cheshta values, which is not a parameter of this tool at all.

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 exact output (Ishta and Kashta phala for the seven grahas) and the two inputs it derives from (Uchcha bala and Cheshta bala, in virupas), which is far more specific than the title alone. It also distinguishes itself from the cheshta sibling by noting that Mars through Saturn take Cheshta from /vedic/shadbala/cheshta. It stops short of saying how it relates to shadbala_full or the other shadbala component tools, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to pick this over shadbala_full, shadbala_cheshta, or shadbala_sthana. The only routing information is a data dependency (Cheshta for Mars–Saturn comes from the cheshta endpoint), which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance. The mention of `parashara` and `geometric` variants without any parameter to select between them leaves the agent unable to act on that distinction.

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