Choghadiya

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds meaningful behavioral context: computation from sunrise/sunset, sixteen labeled segments, and an optional rahu_kaal overlay. It does not detail error behavior, but the docs link provides the full contract and there is 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 organized into short labeled sections with the core purpose front-loaded. WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE, and the docs link each earn their place; there is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 tool has an output schema and the description covers purpose, workflow, and alternatives, so much of the context is present. However, the misleading `location` description and lack of clarification about timezone/response_format behavior create a real gap for an agent constructing the required nested object. The docs link mitigates but does not fix the in-schema contradiction.

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 coverage is high, but the nested `location` property description is misleading: it says a place name like 'Chennai, India' is an alternative to latitude/longitude/timezone, while the schema requires lat/lon and has no place-name field. The INPUT CONTRACT statement about YYYY-MM-DD and lat/lon ranges helps, but the contradictory parameter description undermines reliable invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Splits a solar day into sixteen Choghadiya segments' and names the output labels (quality, ruler, local clock bounds). The DO NOT CONFUSE section explicitly differentiates it from asterwise_get_hora and asterwise_get_muhurta, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 WORKFLOW section explicitly states BEFORE: None and AFTER: asterwise_get_rahu_kaal as an optional overlay. The DO NOT CONFUSE section names two alternatives and the distinguishing count/scope. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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