divine_get_uday_lagna

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it states the tool returns lagna rising periods and sunrise/sunset times, and clarifies that birth details are ignored. This gives the agent a clear expectation of output and input handling without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential clarifications (returns lagna periods, sunrise/sunset, no birth details). Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It states the inputs needed, what it returns, and clarifies that birth details are not used. It does not mention deprecated parameters, but those are fully described in the schema, so no critical gap exists.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for every parameter (e.g., day, month, lat, lon), so the schema itself carries the parameter semantics. The tool description only says 'date and location,' which is already implied by the schema. With schema coverage high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal extra value for parameters.

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') and a well-defined resource ('Uday Lagna timings'), and clarifies the scope by specifying that only date and location are needed, not birth details. This differentiates it from many sibling tools that require birth information, even though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 clearly states the condition for use: a given date and location, with the explicit note that birth details are not used. This implies when to use this tool versus those requiring birth data, but it does not name specific alternatives or exclusions.

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