divine_get_rudraksha_suggestion

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context about the output categories (life, lucky, dasha Rudraksha beads) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as validation requirements, failure modes, or data dependencies beyond what the schema already implies.

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 sentences convey the purpose and output with no filler. The key action and resource are front-loaded, and the clarifying output summary 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 read-only suggestion tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the input basis and the three output bead categories. It does not enumerate required birth fields, but the schema already does so, leaving only minor ambiguity around how strictly the birth data must be 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 description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for every birth-data field (e.g., day, hour, lat, lon, tzone). Since the schema already covers parameter semantics, a baseline score 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 a specific action ('Get Rudraksha suggestions') and the resource ('Rudraksha/mukhi beads'), and it specifies the input basis ('birth data') and the distinct outputs ('life, lucky, and dasha' beads). This makes the tool easily distinguishable from siblings like divine_get_gemstone_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?

The description implies when to use the tool — when birth data is available and Rudraksha suggestions are needed — but gives no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention the closely related divine_get_gemstone_suggestion sibling or when one should be preferred over the other.

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