divine_get_nakshatra

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent). The description adds what it returns (current nakshatra, start/end time, lord, related details), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error conditions, rate limits, or side effects, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return summary is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a read-only tool with a comprehensive output schema. It specifies the input scope (date and location) and the output content (current nakshatra, times, lord, etc.). It does not explicitly differentiate from panchang, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema contains thorough descriptions for all parameters (day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, lan), so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description mentions 'date and location' but does not add further parameter-specific information. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'nakshatra details', and the scope ('for a given date and location'). It distinguishes itself from broader tools like divine_get_panchang and other specific elements like tithi or karana by focusing on nakshatra specifically.

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 when to use it (when nakshatra details are needed for a date and location) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given the large sibling list, explicit guidance (e.g., 'use this for nakshatra-specific info rather than panchang') would be helpful but is absent.

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