Doshas — Shrapit (curse)

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds group and cost info and an example, but no behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradictions. For a read-only tool, the description 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 very concise: it defines the dosha, gives group and cost, and provides a clear example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 many sibling dosha tools, the description clearly identifies this tool's scope. However, it lacks detail on output format (e.g., returns boolean or score) and does not mention typical usage context (e.g., natal chart analysis). The absence of output schema makes it incomplete for an agent to anticipate results.

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 description must compensate; it only provides an example request with common parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude). It does not explain the purpose of parameters like houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, or cosmogram, leaving ambiguity for agent use.

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 it checks for Shrapit Dosha defined as Saturn + Rahu conjunction, signifying inherited curse/blockage. This specific condition distinguishes it from other dosha tools (e.g., mangal, pitru) and systems (KP, Lal Kitab). The verb 'conjunct' and resource 'any sign' precisely describe the tool's function.

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 explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other Parashara dosha tools (e.g., vedic_doshas_parashara_mangal) or brothers from other systems. The description implies use for Shrapit dosha inquiries but does not advise when not to use it or mention prerequisites.

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