divine_get_choghadiya

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the meaning of the output (good/bad periods for activities), which is useful for interpretation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that, such as language support or error handling, which would be expected in the absence of 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 two sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It is concise, contains no fluff, and the second sentence adds meaningful context about what Choghadiya is. This is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 the input schema covers parameters, so the description does not need to explain those. However, the lack of usage guidance and differentiation from sibling tools leaves an agent uncertain about when to invoke this tool. Given the large sibling list, a more complete description would include a note on when Choghadiya is relevant, such as for muhurat selection.

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 contains no parameter information, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each field (day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, lan). With high schema coverage, the description adds nothing beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get Choghadiya (auspicious time slots) for a given date and location.' This clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (Choghadiya), and explains the concept of dividing day/night into planet-ruled slots. It is not a tautology and is specific enough to distinguish from generic Panchang, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like divine_get_auspicious_timings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention any alternatives or conditions for selecting this over divine_get_panchang, divine_get_auspicious_timings, or others. An agent cannot determine suitability without further context.

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