divine_get_chandramasa

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 covered. The description adds that it returns specific data, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, language support, or error handling) beyond what the annotations imply. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function, the second lists the specific outputs.

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?

Given the output schema exists (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true') and annotations cover safety, the description adequately summarizes the expected return values. It mentions the key outputs (month name, system, dates), which is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does without listing every field.

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 all parameters (day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, month_type) have descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage.

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 retrieves Chandramasa (Hindu lunar month) details, specifying the exact resource (lunar month) and the type of information returned (month name, Purnimant/Amant system, start/end dates). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from 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 by stating it's for a given date and location, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as divine_get_chandramasa_list or divine_get_panchang. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing, so the guidance is only implied.

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