Doshas — Parashara full report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying group '[Group: Vedic]', cost '50 credits (Tier 3)', and providing an example request body. These details help the agent understand resource usage and required input format beyond the 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 concise with 3 sentences plus an example. It front-loads the primary purpose and group/cost info, avoiding redundancy. However, the example is somewhat verbose and could be streamlined. Overall, it is well-structured but could be more compact.

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 and no output schema, the description should clarify expected return values or result interpretation. It does not describe what the report contains beyond listing dosha names. The example only covers input. For a combined report, more completeness around output would benefit the agent.

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 exist. The description only provides an example request with date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude, leaving the other 7 parameters (houseSystem, name, city, etc.) unexplained. This insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, as parameters like ayanamsaId or zodiacType remain unclear.

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 runs a combined Parashara dosha report with all 6 detectors, distinguishing it from individual sibling tools like vedic_doshas_parashara_mangal or vedic_doshas_parashara_kaal_sarp. The verb 'runs' and resource '6 detectors' are specific and unambiguous.

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 obtaining a comprehensive dosha report but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over individual detectors or when not to use it. Without 'when to use vs. alternatives', the agent must infer from the 'combined' nature alone. This is adequate but leaves room for misuse if a single dosha is needed.

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