Hora

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and side-effect transparency. The description is consistent with these annotations—'Builds' implies generating calculations without modifying any stored state. No contradiction.

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 well-organized with clear headers (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and stays focused. It is slightly longer than necessary but every section adds value, especially the disambiguation from siblings.

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 explains the core purpose and output tags, but it fails to resolve the location parameter conflict and does not clarify how the date/timezone/lat/lon interplay works. The response_format field is referenced only in the schema, not explained. Overall, enough for basic use but gaps remain due to the location ambiguity.

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 location parameter description says 'Place name, e.g. 'Chennai, India'. Alternative to giving latitude, longitude and timezone.' but the schema requires lat, lon, and date as required properties within an object. This directly conflicts—an agent would be confused whether to pass a string or an object. The individual field descriptions are clear, but the top-level parameter semantics are misleading.

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 specific verb 'Builds', the resource 'twenty-four planetary Horas', the scope 'between successive sunrises for a location date', and the output details (ruler, quality text, current status). It also differentiates from sibling tools like choghadiya and natal chart.

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 says it is standalone and points to asterwise_get_choghadiya as an alternative same-day slot system. The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section clearly distinguishes Horas from choghadiya (16 vs 24 segments) and natal chart, giving agents clear selection criteria.

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