Doshas — Kaal Sarp

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output: subtypes by Rahu house and a partial flag when 6 of 7 grahas are on one side. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations, though it does not cover all possible edge cases.

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, front-loading the key definition and output details. It includes cost and an example, with no extraneous words. Minor improvement could be structuring the subtypes as a list, but overall efficient.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output (subtypes and partial flag) but omits descriptions of optional parameters and their effects. The example helps but is incomplete for a full understanding.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides an example request body but does not explain individual parameters like houseSystem, name, city, etc. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool as computing Kaal Sarp Dosha, specifying the condition (all 7 grahas on one side of Rahu-Ketu axis) and listing the 12 sub-types. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on a specific dosha from Parashara tradition.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and context imply it is for Kaal Sarp Dosha analysis. No comparative guidance is provided, which is adequate but not explicit for an agent.

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