Shadbala — Drik (aspectual)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the formula and cost (50 credits), which goes beyond annotations but does not address additional behavioral traits like rate limits or specific prerequisites.

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, presenting the formula, rules, group, cost, and an example in a few lines. It is front-loaded with the core formula, though it could be better structured with bullet points.

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 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits output format, parameter roles (e.g., name, city, cosmogram), and validation rules beyond the example. The formula provides technical depth but lacks broader context.

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%; the description does not explain any individual parameters. It provides an example request but no details on optional fields like houseSystem, zodiacType, or ayanamsaId. The formula gives context but not parameter-level semantics.

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 it calculates Drik Bala (net aspectual strength) per BPHS A.27.49, with a clear formula. The title and content distinguish it from sibling tools like vedic_shadbala_cheshta, vedic_shadbala_dig, etc., by focusing on 'aspectual' strength.

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 implies usage for calculating net aspectual strength in Vedic astrology, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other shadbala components or provide alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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