Doshas — KP Pitra

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral disclosure. It does introduce the 'KP Sun sub-lord chain' technical detail, which provides some insight into the calculation, but overall it does not go beyond what annotations imply.

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: two sentences plus an example. The most important information (what it calculates) is front-loaded in the first line. The example request body is helpful but could be more integrated. Overall, minimal waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a report, a score, or a list of aspects). Given the complexity of dosha calculations, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand the full behavior or outcome. It lacks details on return format or interpretation.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage in descriptions, meaning parameters are not explained. The description only gives an example request body without explaining the purpose or format of each parameter (e.g., date, time, latitude). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the example.

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 calculates 'Pitra dosha (Sun affliction)' using the KP system with 'KP Sun sub-lord chain'. It identifies the specific dosha and methodology, distinguishing it from other dosha tools like vedic_doshas_kp_manglik or vedic_doshas_kp_kalasarpa. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools nor mention the exact scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools (e.g., vedic_doshas_kp_full) would be more suitable. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.

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