Shadbala: Kala (temporal)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: Yuddha (planetary war) is explicitly deferred/not computed, and Abda/Masa rulers are zeroed to avoid double-counting Vara. The 20-credit Tier 2 cost and required-parameter list are also disclosed, though the output shape is left to the output schema.

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?

Compact and dense with zero filler, but the opening sentence is a run-on of untranslated Sanskrit terms before any plain-language statement of what the tool returns. Structure is backend-note-like rather than front-loaded for agent comprehension.

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 spelled out, and the caveats about deferred Yuddha and zeroed Abda/Masa rulers are genuinely useful. However, with 13 parameters and many defaults, the description does not tell an agent enough about the optional inputs or about which sibling bala tool to combine with it for a full picture.

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, yet the description contributes nothing beyond restating the four required fields already marked required in the schema. It never explains zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, city/name, or how ayanamsa/ayanamsaId interact — all of which the schema only partially documents.

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 a specific resource — the Kala Bala (temporal strength) limb of Shadbala — and enumerates its sub-components (Nathonnatha, Paksha, Tribhaga, Abda/Masa/Vara/Hora, Ayana), which distinguishes it from the sibling limbs sthana/dig/cheshta/naisargika/drik. It lacks an explicit action verb ('computes'/'returns'), so an agent must infer that this produces a Kala Bala calculation, but the subject matter is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to choose this over astroway_vedic_shadbala_full or the other five bala limbs. The only routing-like information is the '[Group: Vedic]' tag and the endpoint line; the agent must already know Shadbala decomposition to pick correctly.

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