vedika_strength

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a meaningful operational trait — the $0.020/call cost — and notes shadbala output is normalized 0-100. It says nothing about permissions/auth, rate limits, failure modes, or whether calls are cacheable, which for a paid computational endpoint is a real gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact per-mode breakdown; every clause maps to a selectable mode or a cost note. The parenthetical enumerations (seven upagrahas, six balas) are dense but do earn their place by previewing output content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what comes back; only shadbala's 0-100 normalization is hinted at, while return shapes for chandra-bala, tara-bala, upagraha, and planet-relationship are unstated. The required inputs (datetime/lat/long/timezone) are fully documented in the schema, so the missing piece is primarily the response shape.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's mode explanations largely restate the enum descriptions already in the schema (chandra-bala, tara-bala, upagraha, planet-relationship, shadbala), adding only marginal detail such as naming the individual upagrahas and the six bala components.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Calculate planetary strength and relationships") followed by an enumeration of the five calculation modes, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like vedika_ashtakavarga, vedika_doshas, or vedika_birth_chart, which also compute chart-derived metrics, so the sibling distinction is left to inference.

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 through mode descriptions: chandra-bala is tagged "for muhurta timing" and shadbala is flagged "most comprehensive," which nudges selection. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many vedika_* siblings that overlap in scope.

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