Doshas — Mangal (Mars affliction)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, confirming it's a safe query. The description adds behavioral details: it follows BPHS rules for dosha detection and applies sign-based cancellations. There is no contradiction with 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 front-loaded with key information but becomes truncated, listing cancellations without complete sentences. It is somewhat verbose with specific details but could be more concise and complete.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format or what the detection result includes. It only mentions detection and cancellations, omitting details about the output structure, severity levels, or additional data. The truncation further reduces completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'school' parameter in detail, leaving 10 other parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, etc.) undocumented. These are standard chart inputs but the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's basic type/default information.

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 is for 'Mangal Dosha detection' with explicit school selection options (strict, north, south) and mentions canonical cancellations. It distinguishes itself from sibling dosha tools by focusing specifically on Mangal Dosha with Parashara rules.

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 explains when to use this tool (for Mangal Dosha detection) and how to select the school via the 'school' parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools like vedic_doshas_kp_manglik implies differentiation.

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