Puja Suggestions

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral context such as omitting planet returns all nine ggrahas and positioning pujas as complementary to rudraksha. The link to the full output/error contract handles the remaining behavioral disclosure without cluttering the text.

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 front-loaded with a crisp purpose sentence and uses labeled short sections such as WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE, so an agent can scan quickly. Every section carries distinct information and there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation values.

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 tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers workflow context, parameter semantics, sibling disambiguation, and points to the full contract. An agent choosing between this and any of the many siblings has enough context to route 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds a complete enumeration of the nine allowed planet values plus the omit-for-all behavior, which the schema only hints at with examples. The response_format parameter is already fully described in the schema, so no further prose is needed.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'returns puja (ritual worship) recommendations for planetary propitiation per ggraha'. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE' section explicitly separates it from asterwise_get_remedies and asterwise_get_rudraksha, making the purpose unambiguous even among many siblings.

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?

WORKFLOW provides explicit before/after tool relationships: natal chart first, rudraksha after, and the DO NOT CONFUSE section names the closest alternatives. The INPUT CONTRACT also tells the agent when to omit planet versus supply a specific ggraha.

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