Doshas — Lal Kitab Kalsarpa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe and non-modifying. The description adds that it includes remedies, which is useful context but does not elaborate on output or behavior further.

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 brief: two sentences defining the tool and group, plus an example. It front-loads the key purpose and avoids redundancy, though it could integrate the example 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 is too sparse. It does not describe return values, remedy format, or how to interpret results, leaving significant 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain most parameters. Only an example request body illustrates date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, and longitude, leaving 6 parameters (houseSystem, name, city, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram) completely undocumented.

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 the tool calculates Kalsarpa dosha (Rahu-Ketu encirclement) with Lal Kitab remedies, which is specific and distinguishes it from other dosha tools (e.g., Parashari kaal sarp, Lal Kitab full). The [Group: Vedic] tag further clarifies its domain.

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 Kalsarpa dosha analysis but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like vedic_doshas_parashara_kaal_sarp or vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_full. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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