Lal Kitab — Dasha (35-year cycle)

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the cycle length and tradition, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose expected output format, handling of missing optional parameters, or potential effects (like whether it returns detailed sub-periods). With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is reasonable.

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, with front-loaded key information (cycle length, tradition) and a helpful example. It avoids unnecessary words and uses a clear structure (definition, tradition note, group label, example). A slight improvement would be grouping parameters more systematically.

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 should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list of dasha periods with dates, lords, sub-periods). It provides no return value description, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid chart), and no hints about how the many optional parameters affect results. This leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 must compensate. It provides an example request body that implicitly explains 5 of 11 parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude). However, it fails to explain the remaining 6 parameters (houseSystem, name, city, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram), leaving the agent uninformed about their semantics and impact on the calculation.

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 identifies this as a Lal Kitab dasha with a 35-year cycle, providing specific numerical detail (1 house per ~2.917 years). It distinguishes from other dasha systems by naming the tradition (K. Ashant) and noting an alternate 38-year method. However, it does not explicitly state the tool's action (e.g., 'calculates' or 'computes'), relying on the title and context to imply purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool over the many sibling dasha and Lal Kitab tools. It mentions an alternate implementation but does not contrast this with other dasha systems (e.g., Vimshottari, Ashtottari) or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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