Lal Kitab — Life graph (age-by-age)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description implicitly supports by calling it a 'snapshot'. The description adds behavioral context: it covers ages 0-35, shows running house, ruler, and ruler's state, and is a 'rough timing index'. No contradictions. The description enriches beyond 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 concise at two sentences plus a group tag and example. It front-loads the main purpose. The example request body adds length, which may be useful but is not strictly necessary for understanding. Overall efficient, though could be tighter.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It explains the output vaguely ('showing the running house, its ruler, and the ruler's current state') but omits format, pagination, or how the age range is calculated. The tool's complexity demands more detail to be fully usable.

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%, and the description contains zero explanation of the 11 parameters. The example request body shows values but does not describe what each parameter (like timezoneOffset, latitude, houseSystem) means or how they affect the output. This is a major gap for tool usability.

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 provides a year-by-year Lal Kitab dasha snapshot for ages 0-35, showing the running house, its ruler, and the ruler's state. The verb 'snapshot' and resource 'Lal Kitab dasha' are specific, and the age range differentiates it from other dasha tools like vedic_lal_kitab_dasha.

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 mentions 'Use as a rough timing index' but does not specify when to avoid this tool or provide alternatives. Given the large sibling list including many other dasha tools, explicit guidance would help. The group tag '[Group: Vedic]' provides some context but no exclusions or comparisons.

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