Festival Calendar

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds genuine behavioral context: the tool outputs exactly 20 festivals, covers solar and tithi-based events, is standalone, and links to the full output/error contract. It does not discuss rate limits or error specifics, but those are partially covered by the annotations and the linked contract.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior and then uses labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) that make the definition easy to scan. Every section carries operational information, and the docs link replaces a long enumeration of error cases. There is no filler or tautology.

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 6-parameter tool with one required field and an output schema, the description supplies the input contract, required-or-alternative parameter groups, output scope, workflow, sibling disambiguation, and a link to the full output/error contract. An agent has everything needed to decide when to use this tool and how to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description earns additional credit by adding the year range 1900-2100 that the schema omits and by clarifying the mutually exclusive input groups: either location OR latitude + longitude + timezone. These are non-obvious constraints an agent must know to call the tool correctly.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Computes all major Hindu festival dates for a given year and location.' It enumerates exactly what is returned (20 pan-Hindu festivals, including solar sankrantis and tithi-based festivals) and later disambiguates from sibling tools, so an agent can tell it apart from asterwise_get_panchanga_calendar and asterwise_get_muhurta.

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?

Provides an explicit WORKFLOW section stating no prerequisites and identifying the natural next call (asterwise_get_panchanga). It also includes a DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section naming two siblings and the exact conditions that select them: full Panchanga per day vs festival-specific, and auspicious activity windows vs festival calendar. This is exceptionally clear usage guidance.

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