Lal Kitab — Teva (fixed-house chart)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds that the output includes planet state and pakka-ghar match flag, and that it is single-school. No contradictions, but no further behavioral details like error handling or dependencies.

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 and front-loaded with key details. It includes a useful example request body. The structure is logical but could be more organized (e.g., separate parameter explanations).

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 adequately explains the tool's function and output features given the lack of output schema. However, it omits parameter semantics and does not cover potential errors or expected output structure, leaving some gaps for a complex 11-parameter tool.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters beyond providing an example JSON. It does not describe the meaning of fields like houseSystem, zodiacType, or ayanamsaId, leaving the agent to infer from the example.

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 that the tool generates a fixed-house Lal Kitab chart (teva) where house equals sign, with planet placement and states. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'teva' and the fixed-house nature.

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 the Lal Kitab school and authorities but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and brief explanation, but no when-not-to or comparator with 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.