Doshas — Lal Kitab Manglik

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which imply a safe, idempotent calculation. The description does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, nor does it contradict them.

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 but includes a group tag and an example. However, it lacks structure (no sections) and omits critical parameter details. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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?

With 11 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the output format, how cancellations affect the result, or how to interpret the return value. The example shows inputs but not outputs.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter. The only parameter info is in the example request body, which shows values but not meaning. This leaves agents unable to understand parameters like zodiacType, houseSystem, or ayanamsaId.

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 determines Manglik dosha per Lal Kitab, specifying the houses (1/4/7/8/12) and cancellation condition (Mars in Aries/Scorpio/Gemini). It is distinct from siblings like vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_full or vedic_doshas_parashara_mangal.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternative dosha tools. The name and group hint at Lal Kitab Manglik, but no comparison or selection criteria are provided.

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