divine_get_muhurat_jain_pachakkhan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's verbs 'Get' and 'Returns' are consistent with that. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only noting that it 'Returns auspicious timings for the day with muhurat details,' which is a mild expectation of output. It does not disclose any additional traits (e.g., required timezone format, whether place name is used for timezone lookup, or output structure), but the annotations carry the safety profile, so this is not a major failure.

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 only two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a minor expectation of output but is largely redundant ('timings' vs. 'muhurat details'). There is no filler, but it doesn't earn its place fully.

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, so return values are documented, but the input side is underdescribed. The description does not cover the nested params structure, the requirement for timezone, or the distinction from other Panchang/muhurat tools. Given the large sibling set, an agent would benefit from more routing context. The annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, but not usage semantics.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only says 'for a given date and location,' but does not enumerate the required fields (day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, lan), their formats, or the fact that a nested params object is expected. This leaves an agent with insufficient information to construct a correct request.

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 verb and resource: 'Get the Jain Pachakkhan timings for a given date and location,' which identifies the tool's domain (Jain Pachakkhan) and distinguishes it from general panchang or muhurat siblings like divine_get_panchang and divine_get_auspicious_timings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, and the term 'Pachakkhan' is left unexplained, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or pointers to sibling tools such as divine_get_panchang or other muhurat tools. An agent must infer from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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