Tamil Panchanga

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description never contradicts those. The description adds useful behavioral context: the exact output categories returned, the input constraint that either location or coordinates+timezone must be provided, and a link to the full output/error contract. It does not cover error/auth/rate-limit behavior, but with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description adds appropriate extra context.

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 first sentence carries the core purpose and output content, and the rest is organized into tight labeled blocks: WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH, and a docs link. Each section earns its place and no sentence is redundant with the schema. The structure makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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?

Given the six-parameter schema, the existing output schema, and annotations that establish the read-only/idempotent profile, the description covers the key decisions: what the tool returns, how to supply the date and location/coordinates, and which sibling tools to avoid. Residual details such as exact error formats and full output fields are delegated to the linked docs and output schema, so nothing critical 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 baseline is 3. The description adds a non-obvious grouping constraint not stated in the schema: 'Either location (city name) OR latitude + longitude + timezone must be provided.' It also reafirms the date format. This is meaningful extra meaning beyond what the property descriptions alone supply.

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 and resource: 'Returns Tamil-specific Panchanga for a date and location', then enumerates the distinct contents: four inauspicious periods, Nalla Neram, and the Tamil solar month. It also names similar siblings in the DO NOT CONFUSE WITH block, so the agent can differentiate it from asterwise_get_rahu_kaal and asterwise_get_panchanga without opening their schemas.

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 states this is standalone and that asterwise_get_panchanga should be used after for the full Vedic five-limb panchanga. The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH block gives clear when-not-to-use guidance and names the exact alternatives with one-line distinctions. This is explicit alternatives/routing guidance, not merely implied.

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