Shadbala: Naisargika (natural)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description contributes real operational context the annotations lack: the POST endpoint, the required inputs, and a cost of 20 credits (Tier 2). It does not disclose what the response contains or warn that the returned numbers are fixed constants rather than chart-derived.

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 definition is front-loaded with the concept and its constant table, then keeps metadata in bracketed tags with zero filler. Every line carries information an agent can act on.

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 cost/endpoint/required-inputs are covered. But with 13 parameters at 23% description coverage and no differentiation from the other shadbala tools, the definition is not quite complete enough for reliable selection among a large tool set.

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 must compensate, but it only repeats the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema already marks as required. Optional but calculation-relevant inputs (ayanamsa, houseSystem, zodiacType, timezone, timezoneOffset) are left entirely to the schema, and the tension between fixed constants and a full birth-data payload is unexplained.

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 Vedic concept (Naisargika Bala = fixed natural strength per planet) and even lists the constant values per planet, so an agent can tell what is computed. It does not, however, distinguish this from the six sibling shadbala tools (full, dig, kala, cheshta, drik, sthana), leaving the boundary 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus astroway_vedic_shadbala_full or the other bala variants, and no mention that the values are chart-independent constants (which would explain why the tool still asks for birth data). The only routing signal is the [Group: Vedic] tag.

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