Doshas — Grahan (eclipse-like)

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 safe, non-mutating nature is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., permissions, rate limits, response structure). This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 and includes a group label, cost, and example request. However, for a tool with 11 parameters, it is too brief and lacks structure (no parameter summaries or output hints). It is not efficiently front-loaded with key details.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description fails to cover output format, interpretation of sub-patterns, or conditions for dosha presence. The example request omits many optional parameters, leaving the agent uninformed about their relevance.

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 must compensate but only provides an example request body for 5 of 11 parameters. It does not explain critical parameters like zodiacType, ayanamsaId, houseSystem, or cosmogram, leaving their meaning and usage ambiguous.

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 defines Grahan Dosha as conjunctions mimicking eclipses and lists the four sub-patterns (Surya-Rahu, Surya-Ketu, Chandra-Rahu, Chandra-Ketu). It uses specific verb+resource (identifies Grahan Dosha) and distinguishes from sibling dosha tools by naming the exact condition.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not differentiate when to choose this tool over other vedic_doshas_parashara_* tools, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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