divine_get_gowri_panchangam

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 day and night segments plus Nalla Neram, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details like whether the response includes sunrise/sunset times, how timezone affects calculations, or any API-specific quirks.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the return value. Every sentence adds information. It could be slightly tighter, but it is efficient and well-structured.

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 need not explain return values in detail. However, given the large sibling set and the specialized nature of Gowri Panchangam, a note on the calculation system (South Indian) is present, but missing guidance on when this is the right tool versus divine_get_panchang or divine_get_choghadiya leaves a gap.

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%, but the schema itself has descriptive parameter names and examples for day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, and lan. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 the Gowri Panchangam for a given date and location, and specifies the output: auspicious/inauspicious time segments (Laabam, Uthi, etc.) and Nalla Neram periods. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like divine_get_panchang or divine_get_choghadiya, which cover different calendrical systems.

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 for South Indian Gowri Panchangam queries, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over divine_get_panchang, divine_get_choghadiya, or divine_get_auspicious_timings. The context signals show many overlapping sibling tools, so explicit when/when-not guidance would help.

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