divine_get_chandrabalam_and_tarabalam

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the tool computes two specific astrological values for a given date and location, which is useful context, but it does not disclose output structure or any edge cases (e.g., invalid date, missing nakshatra).

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, and the second provides brief definitions of the two concepts. Every sentence earns its place, though the definitions could be slightly more precise (e.g., 'Moon's strength for each rashi' is a bit vague).

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?

The tool has an output schema and simple input parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, given the large sibling list of similar astrological tools, the description could better clarify what makes this tool unique (e.g., specifically for muhurta selection) and whether it requires birth nakshatra as input or derives it from the date/location.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'date and location' which maps to the PanchangInput fields (day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone), but it does not explain the 'lan' parameter or the 'params' wrapper. The schema itself documents each field, so the description adds only minimal semantic value beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Chandrabalam and Tarabalam') and explains what each term means. It distinguishes itself from other panchang-related tools by naming the two specific astrological concepts, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like divine_get_panchang or divine_get_tithi.

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 usage context by stating both are 'important for muhurta selection,' which gives an agent a clear reason to select this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related calculations (e.g., divine_get_panchang for general daily calendar).

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