vedika_lalkitab_remedies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the per-call cost ($0.020) and describes the return shape (planet-by-planet analysis, Lal Kitab-specific dignity, affliction description, 2-3 remedies per planet). It does not cover auth requirements, error behavior, or whether remedies are conditional on affliction status beyond the planet parameter note.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the tradition context and return contents following. The middle explanatory sentence is somewhat dense but every clause is relevant; no filler.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential return-value picture and cost, and the schema handles parameter detail. Remaining gap is routing guidance relative to the many other vedika_* analysis tools.

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 100%, so all seven parameters including planet, ayanamsa, and includeDebts are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3.

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 ('Get Lal Kitab remedies for afflicted planets') and scopes it by house placement. It also distinguishes the system from classical BPHS, which helps separate it from Vedic-analysis siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when Lal Kitab-style remedies are wanted. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no pointer to alternatives such as vedika_doshas or vedika_predictions for other remedial or diagnostic needs.

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