Doshas — Lal Kitab Rin (6 ancestral debts)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and read-only. The description adds moderate functional context (aggregate of 6 Rin, active count) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, auth needs, or side effects 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 front-loaded with core info ('Aggregate of all 6 Rin...') and includes a group label and example. It is concise (two sentences plus example) without unnecessary fluff, though the example could be considered slightly lengthy for a description.

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 the tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format beyond 'aggregate with active count', the meaning of 'dosha framing', or how it relates to other dosha tools. The example shows required parameters but fails to cover optional ones or the output structure.

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 has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description includes an example request body showing 5 parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude) but does not explain their meaning or the purpose of the remaining 6 parameters (houseSystem, name, city, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram). The example provides minimal semantic value, leaving significant gaps.

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 an aggregate of all 6 Rin (Pitri/Stree/Kanya/Atma/Rishi/Daiva) with an active count, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool vedic_lal_kitab_debts by noting it uses the same engine but framed as dosha. This is specific and helps differentiate.

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 directly compares to sibling tool vedic_lal_kitab_debts ('same engine but framed as dosha'), giving clear when-to-use versus that alternative. However, it does not provide broader guidance on when to use this tool among the many dosha tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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