check_kaalsarp_dosha

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read operation (checking for dosha) and specifies what it returns (dosha type, severity, effects). However, it does not disclose computational requirements, accuracy limitations, or error conditions (e.g., invalid dates). For a celestial computation tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: one defining the purpose and condition, another listing the return values. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose. Perfectly concise for its complexity.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately lists return values (dosha type, severity, effects). The input schema fully covers parameters. The tool is standalone but the context of sibling tools implies a specific domain. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a note on error handling would improve completeness.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already explains each field. The description adds no further parameter details beyond the schema. Thus, the description adds minimal value, and the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool checks for Kaal Sarp Dosha, explicitly defines the condition (all 7 planets hemmed between Rahu and Ketu), and lists the return values (dosha type, severity, effects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_mangal_dosha or check_sade_sati.

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 when the user wants to check for Kaal Sarp Dosha. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., for other dosha checks or general astrological analysis) or mention prerequisites like accurate birth data. The sibling list provides context but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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