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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations by disclosing the aggregation behavior ('Single call') and the pricing tier ('20 credits (Tier 2)'), which is useful for a cost-aware agent.

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 output list is front-loaded and compact, with the group and cost tags cleanly separated. Every element earns its place, though the long enumeration of content types is borderline dense.

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 values need not be explained. However, for a 15-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description should supply at least minimal guidance on the core inputs; its silence leaves the definition adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description carries a compensation burden it does not meet. It explains no parameter semantics at all, leaving required inputs like date/time/latitude/longitude and optional ones like fields/ayanamsa/timezone entirely to the partial schema.

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 a specific resource (daily Panchang) and enumerates its contents (Tithi, Vara, Karana, Yoga, Nakshatra, Choghadia, Rahu Kaal, etc.), clearly marking it as the comprehensive aggregate. It distinguishes itself from the granular panchang siblings by being 'full' and a 'single call', though it never names those siblings 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?

'Single call' hints at using this to get everything at once, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. With dedicated siblings like astroway_vedic_panchang_tithi and astroway_vedic_panchang_rahu_kaal available, the description should say when to prefer this costlier aggregate over the individual calls, and it does not.

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