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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is deterministic, uses no LLM, and follows the same compute path as a specific API endpoint, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention error cases, rate limits, or output format, but the deterministic and API-parity statements give an agent a solid behavioral model.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose and return values are front-loaded, and the deterministic/no-LLM differentiator is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a read-only computation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is returned, the default date behavior, and the deterministic nature. It could mention that the output is a structured object or list, but the enumerated components already give an agent a good sense of the return. The lack of annotations is partially offset by the description's clarity.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the default behavior for 'date' (local today at the location) and clarifies that lat/lng are location coordinates, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for tz. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('panchang'), enumerates the exact components returned (tithi, paksha, nakshatra, yoga, karana, vara, sunrise/sunset), and clarifies the optional date with a default. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a deterministic, no-LLM computation, which is a clear differentiator from ask_jyotish.

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 when to use it: when a deterministic panchang computation is needed, and explicitly contrasts with 'no LLM' and 'same compute path as GET /api/panchang', which helps an agent choose it over ask_jyotish. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the deterministic/no-LLM framing provides clear context.

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