check_mangal_dosha

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

The description discloses that it checks specific houses, returns dosha status, trigger houses, and cancellation conditions. With no annotations provided, this is sufficient behavioral transparency. It does not mention any destructive effects or permissions, but that is appropriate for a read-only astrological calculation.

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?

Two sentences with clear, front-loaded information. The first sentence defines purpose and scope, the second adds context and output. Could be shortened slightly but remains 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?

Given the complexity of Mangal Dosha (specific houses, cancellation conditions), the description covers the key aspects. Without an output schema, it appropriately mentions return fields (status, trigger houses, cancellations). The parameter schema is fully described, so no gaps.

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?

Description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond listing dosha-related output, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No further parameter details are needed.

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 specific astrological concept (Mangal Dosha) with exact triggering houses (1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 12th). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_kaalsarp_dosha and check_sade_sati by focusing on Mars affliction for matrimonial compatibility.

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 states the tool is 'highly relevant for matrimonial compatibility', implying its primary use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives among sibling tools like get_kundali_match or get_moon_sign.

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