divine_get_tithi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful output behavior by specifying that it returns tithi, paksha, start/end times, and deity, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention calculation caveats, but that is a minor gap given the strong annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the return contents. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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, idempotent calculation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and key output fields. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying the 'current' wording ambiguity or pointing to sibling tools, but the schema and annotations carry the remaining operational detail.

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 almost no parameter-level meaning; it only refers to 'a given date and location'. The schema signal reports 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining timezone, language, or field formats, leaving the agent to inspect the nested schema for details.

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 names a specific resource ('tithi (lunar day)') and a specific verb ('Get'), and scopes the input to 'a given date and location'. It clearly states the returned data (tithi, paksha, start/end times, deity), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like divine_get_panchang or divine_get_month_tithi_list.

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 a usage context—when tithi details for a date and location are needed—but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. Given the large sibling list, more explicit routing would help an agent choose this tool over the related panchang or month-list tools.

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