vedika_doshas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context; it does disclose cost ($0.016-0.040/call) and the astrological rules used (BPHS Ch. 80 citations, 3 Sade Sati phases), which is meaningful transparency. It does not state the operation is read-only/computational or describe error behavior, so some burden remains unmet.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded: the core purpose leads, each dosha type is one clause, and the cost caveat closes. No sentence is filler and nothing needed is buried.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should say something about what comes back (dosha present/absent, severity, remedies), but it only covers inputs. For a paid calculation tool with no output schema and no annotations, that leaves the result contract unexplained.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by explaining what 'all' actually composes and by detailing the phase structure of sade-sati, which the enum text only gestures at. The ayanamsa, datetime, and coordinate parameters add nothing beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Detect unfavorable planetary combinations (doshas) in a birth chart') and then enumerates each dosha with the technical rule behind it. An agent can distinguish this from vedika_compatibility or vedika_birth_chart without opening the schema.

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?

Explains what each type checks (Mangal houses 1,2,4,7,8,12; Kaal Sarp Rahu-Ketu enclosure; Sade Sati 7.5-year transit) and clarifies that 'all' runs only Mangal+Kaal Sarp+Pitru, which prevents a wrong enum assumption. It does not name when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g. vedika_compatibility for marriage matching), so no explicit alternative routing.

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