Nakshatra Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: the lookup is static, exact-name based, and 'nakshatra_name is forwarded raw — no local fuzzy matching or normalisation.' These are useful operational traits not visible in the schema or 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?

Front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by clearly labeled WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DISAMBIGUATION sections. Every section earns its place and the external docs link handles deep error/output detail without bloating the description.

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?

Complete for a static lookup tool: it states scope, input exactness, standalone behavior, sibling exclusions, expected return categories, and points to a full output/error contract. With an output schema and rich annotations present, nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that nakshatra_name must be exact and is forwarded raw without fuzzy matching, which is a real semantic constraint beyond the schema. It does not add detail for response_format, but the schema covers that fully.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'looks up static metadata for one of twenty-seven nakshatras by exact name' and names the return content. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools in the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' block, so an agent can see exactly what this tool is and is not.

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 explicit workflow context ('standalone', BEFORE/AFTER: None) and explicitly names two sibling alternatives with the condition that selects them: asterwise_get_natal_chart computes birth nakshatra, asterwise_get_dasha uses Moon nakshatra for timing. This gives clear 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.