Doshas — KP full summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns a summary and that Sade-Sati is only a pointer, which provides some behavioral context but does not contradict annotations.

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 description is concise: three sentences plus an example. Every sentence adds value—purpose, caveat, group tag. No unnecessary content.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the composite nature and the Sade-Sati caveat, but lacks parameter documentation and output description, leaving some gaps for an agent to use it 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?

Description provides an example request body but does not describe the meaning of any of the 11 parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents without guidance on fields like houseSystem, zodiecType, ayanamsaId, etc.

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 clearly states it is a composite summary of multiple KP doshas (manglik, kalasarpa, pitra, kemadruma, and Sade-Sati pointer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vedic_doshas_kp_manglik, etc., which focus on individual doshas.

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?

The description explicitly notes that Sade Sati requires a separate call via /sade-sati, guiding the agent when to use this composite tool vs the dedicated one. It also groups the tool under Vedic, but does not explicitly list all alternatives.

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