Hindu calendar: festivals for a year and place

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the endpoint, the required inputs, and notably the cost (100 credits, Tier 4), which matters for tool selection. It does not describe output shape, but an output schema exists.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the long enumeration of ~24 festival names largely duplicates the enum already present in the schema and consumes most of the text without adding selection value. The bracketed metadata lines are compact and useful.

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?

With an output schema, rich annotations, and 89% schema coverage, the description only needs to frame scope, which it does. Minor gaps remain around how the place affects dating and what the response contains, but nothing essential 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 89%, so parameters like year, latitude, timezone, tradition, and ayanamsa are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming some festivals that overlap with the enum. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (pan-Indian Hindu festivals) and scope (about 55, dated for a given place and year), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from calendar siblings like months or vrats. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as astroway_vedic_calendar_vrats, astroway_vedic_calendar_months, or astroway_vedic_calendar_ics. The agent must infer from the festival list alone that this is the general festival lookup.

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