divine_get_festivals_by_date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds that the tool returns 'all Hindu festivals and observances', but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as response size, pagination, or location dependence beyond what is inferable from the schema.

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 action is front-loaded first, followed by a clear scope statement. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 annotations covering safety, so the description does not need to duplicate those. However, it omits any mention of required location parameters or typical usage context. An agent could successfully invoke the tool based on the schema, but the description alone is incomplete for understanding the data requirements and the fact that this is a Hindu-specific, date-limited query.

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% for the top-level 'params' field, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely mentions 'given date and location' and does not explain that a full date (day, month, year), place name, coordinates, and timezone are required. The required nested fields are left undocumented in the description, and while the schema provides individual field descriptions, the tool description itself fails to orient the agent on the parameter structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('festivals falling on a specific date'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like divine_get_festivals_by_month and divine_find_festival. It also specifies the cultural scope ('Hindu festivals and observances'), which helps an agent disambiguate from Tamil, Malayalam, or English festival tools.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any exclusion criteria, fallback conditions, or relationships to sibling tools. An agent must infer context purely from the name and generic description.

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