Lal Kitab — Remedies (Upayas)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by detailing the content of the remedy (remedy + day + donation + mantra) and the parameter behavior. No contradictions exist between description and 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 very concise: two sentences plus a group label and an example request body. Every part serves a purpose, with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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 description covers the main functionality and parameter usage. However, it lacks details about the output format or structure. Given that there is no output schema, a brief mention of the return type would improve 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 description coverage is 100% for birth data fields, which already describe the required parameters. The tool description adds meaning by explaining the effect of the optional 'planet' parameter on the output, going beyond the schema's structural 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 explicitly states 'Per-planet Lal Kitab remedies (upayas): the canonical Mathur-tradition remedy + day + donation + mantra.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling Lal Kitab tools that cover other topics like houses or dashas.

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 provides implicit usage guidance by explaining the effect of the optional 'planet' parameter ('With optional planet param, returns single-planet upaya; without, returns all 9'). However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or specify when to use it over other Lal Kitab tools.

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