Shadbala — full summary

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's behavioral burden is lower. It adds value by disclosing cost (50 credits, Tier 3) and efficiency ('Single call'), which are not in 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 extremely concise, uses bullet-style key facts (group, cost), and includes an example. It is front-loaded with purpose and actionable details. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 lacks details on the output format or return structure, which is significant given no output schema. It covers purpose and efficiency but is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the response. It provides enough context to call the tool but not to interpret results without further schema.

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 has 0% description coverage for 11 parameters. The description provides an example request body but does not explain any parameter semantics, meaning, or allowed values beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., patterns, enums).

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 it returns combined Shadbala with all 6 types of strength plus totals per planet. It explicitly calls out that it is a single call for a summary, differentiating it from individual shadbala tools like vedic_shadbala_cheshta, etc.

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 says 'Useful for Vedic chart strength dashboards' which implies a dashboard context but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. individual shadbala tools or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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