Shadbala — Dig (directional)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond these: it explains the calculation (linear gradient), the specific house-planet mappings, and provides an example request body. No contradictions. The cost and group are also specified.

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 (4 lines plus example body), front-loads the key purpose and algorithm, and avoids unnecessary detail. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 the complexity of Vedic calculations and no output schema, the description covers the core algorithm and planet mappings but lacks parameter explanations, usage guidance, return format, and differentiation from many similar sibling tools. It is minimally adequate.

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 by explaining parameters. However, the description only includes an example request body without defining any parameter meanings or constraints. It fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 defines Dig Bala as directional strength, explains the scoring mechanism (60v at preferred kendra cusp, 0v at opposite, linear gradient), and maps specific planets to preferred houses (Sun/Mars→10th, etc.). This distinguishes it from other shadbala tools like vedic_shadbala_cheshta or vedic_shadbala_drik.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus other shadbala tools. It lacks explicit usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the technical details alone.

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