divine_get_basic_astro_details

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds the list of returned fields, which is some transparency, but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral quirks. Given annotations carry the main burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a succinct list of return fields. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it highly 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?

This tool requires a complex input object with many fields and has a large sibling family, yet the description omits usage context, any parameter prerequisites, or differentiation from alternatives. With an output schema present, return format is covered, but the description lacks enough guidance for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool 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 description provides zero explanation of parameters, and schema coverage by description is 0%. Although the schema itself has detailed per-field descriptions, the tool description does not compensate, which it should given the low coverage. Agents must rely solely on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 tool fetches basic astrological details for a person based on birth data and enumerates specific return fields (tithi, nakshatra, rashi, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve individual elements. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many specialized siblings (e.g., divine_get_tithi). The description only states what it does without any selection criteria or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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