DivineAI

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are sorted soonest-first, multi-day festivals carry an end date, and undated festivals appear separately in a verification-pending state. That last caveat is critical for an agent interpreting empty date fields correctly.

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 with no filler, and the core resource plus ordering are front-loaded before the verification caveat. The final sentence is long but carries high-value information about data trustworthiness, so it earns its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and annotations plus 100% parameter coverage handle the safety and argument surface. The description completes the picture with the data-verification model; only the relationship to the two sibling tools remains unaddressed.

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 days, limit, from_date and to_date are already fully documented including defaults and ranges; the baseline of 3 applies. The description echoes the date-range scoping and ordering but adds no detail beyond the schema, such as how limit interacts with the separate undated-festival listing.

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 resource (Hindu festivals, vrats and observances), a scoping constraint (between two dates) and an ordering (soonest first), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings get_panchang or get_vrat_guide, so differentiation must be inferred.

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: the date-range framing suggests calendar lookups, and the mention of vrats hints at overlap with get_vrat_guide, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is stated. With two closely related siblings, this is the definition's weakest area.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the response always states the city, time zone and date actually used, and the tool will actively ask for a city when neither the parameter nor an approximate location is available. That interactive fallback is behavior an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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 purpose, then contents, then edge-case behavior — no wasted sentences. 'Always states the city, time zone and date used' borders on restating return values that an output schema already covers, a minor redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to document return shape, and it still characterizes the payload at a high level. Together with full schema coverage of both optional parameters and the missing-city fallback, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry their own descriptions (fixed city list, ISO date format, today default, approximate-location fallback). The description restates the city fallback but adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 names the resource (Panchang for one day in one city) and enumerates the exact contents: sunrise/sunset, moonrise/moonset, tithi with paksha, nakshatra, yoga, karana with end times, plus that day's festival. This makes it clearly a single-day almanac tool rather than a festival-lookup or vrat-guide tool. It never names get_festival_dates or get_vrat_guide to draw the boundary explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implied rather than stated: the 'one day in one city' framing and the note about asking for a city when none is available tell the agent how the call behaves, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_festival_dates/get_vrat_guide guidance. Defaults for city (approximate location) and date (today) are covered in the schema rather than the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data provenance (DharmikVibes verified calendar, DivineAI vrat list) and the caveat that ritual-procedure text appears only after scholar verification, telling the agent to expect partial detail.

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, front-loaded with the core resource and its fields before the provenance and caveat sentences. The source-branding phrasing ('DharmikVibes', 'DivineAI') is slightly promotional but does carry informational weight about reliability.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, and the schema fully documents all four params. What remains for the description — what data is returned, how trustworthy it is, and that ritual instructions are conditional — is all present.

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%, documenting the vrat filter, ISO from_date/to_date, the 60-day default window and include_weekly. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: it returns which vrats (fasts) fall on which dates, naming concrete examples (Ekadashi, Pradosh, Karwa Chauth) plus the deity field. It does not, however, say how this differs from get_festival_dates, which plausibly also returns dated observances, so sibling differentiation 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?

The description implies the use case (queries about vrat dates) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not and never references the two siblings, get_festival_dates and get_panchang. With a probable overlap between vrats and festivals, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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