Doshas — Lal Kitab Shrapit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, establishing safety. The description adds that specific remedies are provided, which is a behavioral output beyond mere calculation. However, it does not detail potential side effects or limitations of the remedies.

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 plus example) and front-loaded with key purpose. The example request is useful. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter details, making it arguably too concise for a complex tool.

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 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not provide sufficient information for correct invocation. It omits parameter meaning, output format, and usage context. The example request partially compensates, but overall completeness is low.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters beyond a generic example request. It fails to clarify the meaning or purpose of parameters like houseSystem, zodiacType, or ayanamsaId, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 identifies the tool as computing Shrapit dosha (ancestral curse) per Lal Kitab, specifying the condition (Saturn conjunct Rahu/Ketu) and that it provides remedies. This distinguishes it from sibling dosha tools by name and specific condition, though a brief note on when to choose this over other dosha tools would strengthen differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other dosha tools (e.g., vedic_doshas_lal_kitab_kalsarpa or vedic_doshas_parashara_shrapit). The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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