divine_get_sankranti_festivals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns twelve transitions with dates, moments, and punya kala windows, which is output context rather than deeper behavioral detail. No contradictions with annotations, and the additional context is useful but minimal.

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 filler. It front-loads the purpose ('Get Sankranti festivals for a year') and then briefly outlines the output. Every word adds value; it is concise and well-structured.

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 relatively simple tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what it returns and for what period. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., leap years, regional variations) but the output schema likely covers the return structure. It is sufficient for an agent to call correctly, though a note on how the output is ordered or formatted would push it to 5.

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%, so each parameter (year, place, lat, lon, tzone) is already documented with examples. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond implying the 'year' parameter; it doesn't clarify how lat/lon/tzone affect results, which is already in schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full coverage.

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 gets Sankranti festivals for a given year, listing the twelve solar transitions (Makar, Kumbha, Meena, Mesha) and the data returned (dates, transition moments, punya kala windows). This is specific and distinguishes it from the many sibling festival tools (e.g., English calendar, Tamil, Malayalam, by-date) by focusing solely on Sankranti.

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 use when the user needs Sankranti festivals for a year, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it. With many sibling festival tools, explicit routing (e.g., 'for other festivals, use divine_get_festivals_by_date') would be more helpful, but the purpose is clear enough to infer.

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