Shadbala — Naisargika (natural)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by stating that the strength is 'fixed' (not dependent on input beyond date/time) and lists the actual values. It does not contradict annotations and offers slight behavioral insight beyond the structured fields.

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 short and includes key information (fixed strength values, example request) with group and cost metadata. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no fluff, though the inclusion of group/cost tags adds structure. Could be slightly more organized but is efficient.

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 tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools. The description only reveals the core output (planet strengths) without explaining the output structure or how parameters relate to the computation. It does not describe the role of this shadbala component within the larger system or how it differs from other shadbala tools (e.g., full, kala). Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool behavior and output.

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. It includes an example request body but does not explain the meaning or derivation of any parameter (e.g., date, time, latitude, longitude). Many optional parameters (houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram) are not mentioned at all. The example does not clarify usage beyond showing a valid format.

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 computes 'Naisargika Bala — fixed natural strength per planet' and lists the exact values for each planet. This distinguishes it from sibling shadbala tools (e.g., vedic_shadbala_dig, vedic_shadbala_kala) by explicitly naming the naisargika (natural) component. The title and group also reinforce the purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives among the many shadbala and Vedic tools. It only includes group and cost metadata. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any reference to sibling tools.

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