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.