divine_get_sadhe_sati

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the key behavioral fact that the tool computes based on Moon sign and returns phase plus dates, which is useful. However, it does not disclose edge cases like birth time sensitivity, whether the phase is precise to the day, or what happens when the person is not in Sadhe Sati (e.g., whether it returns a 'no active' state). No contradiction with 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 compact: two sentences that front-load the verb and resource, then provide the astronomical definition and output. No filler, no repetition of schema field names, and 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?

An output schema exists bracket, so return values need no elaboration. Given the tool's simple read-only nature and the schema's detailed birth-input fields, the description covers the core behavior. It lacks only a note on edge cases (e.g., 'not currently in Sadhe Sati' handling), keeping it from a 5, but it is otherwise complete for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description carries the burden, but the single 'params' object references a KundliInput definition whose individual fields are already well-described in the schema. The description adds context that all those birth details are needed to determine the Moon sign, but it doesn't add meaning beyond that. The schema itself provides good field-level descriptions (e.g., 'Birth day (e.g., '24')'), so baseline 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 ('Check'), the specific resource (Sadhe Sati status), and the exact astronomical basis (7.5-year period of Saturn transiting through the 12th, 1st, and 2nd houses from Moon sign). It also specifies the output ('Returns current phase and dates'), which completely distinguishes this from other transit tools like divine_get_grah_gochar or divine_get_shani_ashtam_shani.

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 usage through its clear scope but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. For instance, it doesn't say 'for a general Saturn transit, use grah_gochar' or 'for Ashtam Shani, use shani_ashtam_shani'. The context is clear enough that an agent could infer the right use, but explicit routing guidance is missing.

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