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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it computes and marks based on diurnal length and local time, which is transparent and consistent. No side effects or hidden actions are implied, and with annotations present, this level of disclosure is sufficient.

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 main description is one concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The additional WORKFLOW and INPUT CONTRACT sections are structured and mostly non-redundant, though the input contract partially repeats schema information. Overall, it is well-organized and 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?

For an astrological tool with multiple intervals and disambiguation needs, the description covers the essential information: what it computes, how it uses location and time, and how it differs from closely related tools. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'diurnal length' (implying lat/lon usage) and 'local time' (implying timezone importance), which helps an agent understand parameter relevance beyond the schema text.

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 exact function: computing Rahu Kaal, Gulika Kaal, and Yamaganda Kaal intervals from diurnal length and marking active status. It explicitly names the three intervals and the 'active now' feature, distinguishing it from the sibling choghadiya tool which covers full day/night slot tables.

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 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly contrasts this tool with asterwise_get_choghadiya and asterwise_get_panchanga, providing clear conditions for when this tool should be used (for the three kaal bands specifically) versus alternatives. This gives direct guidance on tool selection.

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