divine_get_composite_friendship

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that natural, temporal, and composite friendship/enmity are all computed and that the result covers all planet pairs.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the additional sentence adds valuable domain clarification without redundancy.

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?

For a read-only table-generation tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient for selection and invocation. It lacks explicit usage guidance and parameter context, but the schema and annotations cover most of the operational requirements.

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 should compensate by explaining the input requirements. It only says 'birth chart,' which is a weak hint; it does not clarify that full birth details are needed or explain the single 'params' 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 specific operation ('Get composite (Panchda) friendship table') and the resource scope ('all planets', 'all planet pairs in the birth chart'). It clearly distinguishes this from the many sibling tools by naming a unique astrological output.

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?

There is no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead of' statement, but the description makes the function's unique purpose clear: friendship/enmity relationships between planets. No sibling covers this exact resource, so the intended context is inferable.

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