Doshas — KP Manglik

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minor behavioral context (e.g., sub-lord chain for transit-trigger analysis) but does not disclose further behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose, followed by a key feature and an example. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the example could be integrated more seamlessly.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description lacks details on output format, interpretation of results, and handling of optional parameters. It does not provide enough context for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It provides an example request body showing parameter usage but does not explain individual parameters' semantics, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema. For 11 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 computes Manglik dosha with KP sub-lord precision and includes a sub-lord chain of Mars for transit-trigger analysis. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vedic_doshas_parashara_mangal by specifying the KP system.

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 implies usage for Manglik dosha analysis within the KP framework but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison with siblings is provided.

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