divine_get_yoga_panchang

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that it computes the current Nitya Yoga from the Sun-Moon angular relationship and that the result conveys auspiciousness. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and inputs; the second defines the output and its significance. 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?

The description plus annotations cover the operation, its read-only safety, and the output concept. However, given the enormous sibling list, it does not disambiguate this from divine_get_panchang or divine_get_yogas, and it doesn't mention the required timezone parameter, which is essential for an accurate panchang calculation. The nested schema fills some gaps, but the overall definition is not fully complete for correct tool selection.

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 context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation, but it only mentions 'date and location.' It omits the required timezone and language inputs and does not explain the params container. Though the nested schema properties are individually described, the tool-level description does not fill the top-level gap enough for an agent to confidently prepare all required inputs.

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 operation ('Get yoga'), the resource ('yoga'), and the inputs ('date and location'). It adds a definition of yoga as the Sun-Moon angular relationship and specifies the 27 Nitya Yogas, so an agent understands exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like divine_get_yogas or divine_get_sun_moon, but the concept is specific enough to infer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over close siblings such as divine_get_panchang, divine_get_tithi, divine_get_nakshatra, or divine_get_yogas. The description implies it is for retrieving the yoga, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria in a library with more than 120 Vedic astrology tools.

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