divine_get_karana

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description contributes domain context about what karana is, but no additional behavioral traits such as response format, validation behavior, or system assumptions, so it stays at baseline.

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 compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the explanatory context kept to a single short paragraph; no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only lookup tool.

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 straightforward read-only lookup, the combination of the description's conceptual framing and the detailed nested input schema is enough for an agent to call the tool; the output schema covers return value details. It is slightly incomplete only in missing explicit comparison to related panchang tools.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only paraphrases the inputs as 'date and location' without mapping to the actual required day/month/year/lat/lon/tzone fields or the optional language parameter. It therefore fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, even though the nested schema itself contains useful property descriptions.

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 opens with a concrete action ('Get') and a distinct resource ('karana details'), and the follow-up explanation that karana is half of a tithi helps separate it from the similarly named tithi and panchang siblings. It could be stronger by explicitly naming the alternative tool for full panchang or tithi data, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the statement that the 11 karanas have qualities 'for timing activities' suggests this tool is for karana-based timing, and the 'date and location' phrase defines the invocation context. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of sibling tools like divine_get_panchang or divine_get_tithi.

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