divine_get_planet_remedies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds useful context about what the response covers, but it does not disclose deeper behavioral details such as response structure or language handling; given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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, purposeful sentences front-load the core action and then list the specific output categories without redundancy or filler. 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description sufficiently explains what to supply and what to expect. The main missing piece is explicit sibling differentiation, but that primarily affects usage guidance rather than the ability to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with analysis_planet listing valid values and params fully describing birth details. The description only reinforces that a planet is selected and provides no new parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), resource ('remedial measures for one planet's placement'), and enumerates the output contents: donation, gemstone, lifestyle practice, mantra, and weaknesses. It is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name overlapping tools such as divine_get_gemstone_suggestion or divine_get_rudraksha_suggestion.

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: call this when remedial measures for a specific planet's placement in a birth chart are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, so the agent must infer routing from the large sibling list.

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