divine_get_nivas_and_shool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaning about the content (directional inauspicious timings and deity resting places) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or potential limitations. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the main action and then briefly explains the terms, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (not shown) and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete enough for a simple read operation. It explains the meaning of Nivas and Shool, which is useful. The only minor gap is the lack of guidance on selecting this over similar timing tools, but that falls under usage guidelines.

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 (PanchangInput) provides detailed descriptions for all sub-parameters (day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, lan), so the schema covers parameter semantics thoroughly. The description only mentions 'date and location' generically and adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already offers. 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 tool returns 'Nivas and Shool' (directional inauspicious timings) for a given date and location, and provides brief definitions of both terms. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and the meaning is distinct from the many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related ones like divine_get_inauspicious_timings.

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 for use, prerequisites, or when not to use it. An agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this is for Nivas and Shool specifically, but no explicit routing is provided.

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