divine_get_chandramasa_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns start and end dates of each lunar month, which is useful, but it fails to explain the list semantics (e.g., how many months are returned, whether it is month-scoped or year-scoped). It also does not mention the deprecated 'day' and 'lan' fields or their behavior, leaving behavioral gaps despite annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, but it repeats the same idea in the second sentence without adding new information. It could be more concise by merging the two sentences and using the space to clarify the period semantics. It is not bloated, but it lacks key details that would make it more useful.

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 (not shown), so return format is presumably covered. However, the description is ambiguous about whether the tool returns a list for the whole year, a specific month, or a range. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling divine_get_chandramasa, and the deprecated fields are not addressed. Given the required month parameter and the existence of many sibling tools, this description is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 schema itself provides descriptions for all fields, but the description does not compensate for the month parameter, which is required yet omitted from the description's summary of 'specified year and location.' With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should highlight the required inputs and their roles, but it only mentions year and location, leaving month and timezone unexplained. This is a significant gap for a tool with a single nested parameter object.

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 clear verb ('Get list') and resource ('Chandramasa (Hindu lunar months)'), and mentions it returns start and end dates. However, the phrase 'for a given period' is vague, and the subsequent 'for the specified year and location' conflicts with the required month parameter in the schema, creating ambiguity about what exactly the list covers. It partially distinguishes from the sibling divine_get_chandramasa by being a list, but not 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus divine_get_chandramasa or other calendar tools. There is no mention of when not to use it, what inputs are required, or what distinguishes it from similar list tools like divine_get_month_tithi_list. The description provides zero usage context.

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