divine_get_panchang

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to re-explain those. It adds the set of returned Vedic elements but does not cover failure modes, limitations, or other behavioral nuances.

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 short, focused sentences front-load the tool's purpose and return value with no redundant or speculative wording. Every sentence 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 names the resource, gives high-level input context, and lists the main output categories, which is sufficient given the schema and output schema exist. A small gap is not mentioning optional language selection or explicitly routing specialized needs to sibling 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 description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'date and location', but the input schema provides thorough descriptions for day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, and lan. Therefore the agent can still invoke the tool correctly based on the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('complete daily Panchang'), then enumerates key returned components. This clearly distinguishes it from the many specialized sibling tools like divine_get_tithi or divine_get_sun_moon.

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 phrase 'complete daily Panchang' makes it clear this is the all-in-one tool for daily Vedic calendar data, which is enough context given the specialized siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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