Doshas — Lal Kitab full summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which align with the tool's read-only computation. The description adds a list of included doshas but no additional behavioral context like performance, error handling, or output structure. No contradiction with 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 very short (two sentences plus example), front-loaded with purpose. The example is helpful. However, it could be slightly more structured to include parameter guidance or output hints.

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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of each dosha, the kismat score, or the output format. The example is helpful but incomplete, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use all parameters or interpret results.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only provides an example with 5 of 11 parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude), leaving the remaining 6 parameters (e.g., houseSystem, zodiacType) entirely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 provides a composite summary of specific Lal Kitab doshas (manglik, kalsarpa, pitra, shrapit, 6 Rin, kismat score). The title 'Doshas — Lal Kitab full summary' further reinforces this, distinguishing it from individual dosha tools among siblings.

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 use for a comprehensive dosha overview via 'full summary' and provides an example, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., individual dosha tools). No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use information.

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