Planet Nature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a standalone reference tool, follows classical Vedic tradition, and can return either all planets or one planet; it also links to the full output and error contract. It adds value 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 organized into short, labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE) with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every section earns its place by aiding tool selection or invocation, and the formatting makes scanning easy despite the large sibling list.

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 simple, read-only reference tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it states purpose, input contract, workflow context, sibling disambiguation, and points to the full output/error contract via URL. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly 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%, but the description adds meaning for the 'planet' parameter by enumerating all nine allowed values and explicitly stating that omitting it returns all planets. The 'response_format' parameter is already well-explained by the schema enum, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('classical graha (planet) properties'), and clearly scopes the operation to 'all nine planets or a single planet'. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly distinguishes it from puja suggestions and rudraksha recommendations, making sibling differentiation strong.

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 states there is no prerequisite ('BEFORE: None') and names the natural follow-up tool ('AFTER: asterwise_get_puja_suggestions'). The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' block explicitly names alternatives and why they are different, giving clear when-to-use versus 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.