Doshas — Pitru (ancestral)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond: cost (50 credits), example request body, and the scope limitation (detects only 3 of 14 patterns). This provides useful behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 three sentences plus metadata and an example. It front-loads the core purpose and limitation. The example is helpful but adds length; still, every sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly tighter if example were moved to schema, 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?

The tool has 11 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description does not explain parameter meanings, valid values (except example), or the response format. For a complex Vedic astrology endpoint, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description provides an example request body showing 5 parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude) but does not explain the remaining 6 parameters like houseSystem, name, city, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram. Without clarification, the agent cannot infer appropriate values for these parameters.

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 detects Pitru Dosha via Sun+Rahu or Sun+Saturn conjunctions, with an auxiliary marker. It specifies it covers 3 of 14 patterns from BPHS, distinguishing it from the full canonical detection deferred to Phase Q. This is specific and differentiates from sibling dosha tools.

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 Pitru Dosha detection and notes limitations (only 3 patterns, full detection deferred). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other dosha tools like vedic_doshas_parashara_full or mention alternatives. Context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or selection criteria.

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