Shadbala — Kala (temporal)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by noting that Yuddha (planetary war) is deferred and that Abda/Masa rulers are currently zeroed, which are important limitations. However, it does not describe the output format or any other side effects beyond the 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 relatively concise and front-loads key information ("Kala Bala — sum of..."). However, the trailing ellipsis indicates truncation, suggesting incomplete content. The structure is a single paragraph with comma-separated lists, which is adequate but not exemplary.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., per-planet Kala Bala values), nor does it adequately cover input requirements beyond the example request body which is separate. The description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It entirely fails to do so—it does not describe any of the 11 input parameters (e.g., ayanamsaId, cosmogram). The agent must guess from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 identifies the tool as computing Kala Bala (temporal strength) for Vedic astrology, listing its sub-components (Nathonnatha, Paksha, etc.). The title and group context help distinguish it from other shadbala tools (e.g., vedic_shadbala_cheshta, vedic_shadbala_dig). However, the ellipsis at the end suggests truncation, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., vedic_shadbala_full for all components). The description assumes the agent knows Vedic astrology and the role of Kala Bala in Shadbala, but does not provide comparative usage context.

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