Panchang: Chandra Bala for a person

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real domain behavior: the exact house sets that count as favourable versus chandrashtama. It also discloses operational facts the annotations don't carry — the POST endpoint, the three required fields, and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost.

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?

Two dense sentences plus bracketed metadata blocks, front-loaded with the core computation and the favourable-house rule. Nothing is padded, and the required-fields and cost lines are scannable.

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 present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the inputs, the derivation rule, and cost. The terse phrasing around the birth-versus-janmaRashi fallback could be clearer about precedence, but overall it is sufficient for an 11-parameter call.

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?

At 64% schema coverage, the description earns credit for clarifying the relationship the schema leaves implicit: the natal Moon is derived from `birth`, or supplied directly via `janmaRashi`, which is the key either/or decision for the caller. Its `days` 1-31 note merely repeats the schema.

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 names a specific computation: for each day and Moon sign, the Moon's house counted from the natal Moon sign, with 'favourable' houses (1,3,6,7,10,11) and 'chandrashtama' (8) flagged. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like tara_bala or chandrashtama_day, though it never explicitly names them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the scoring rule makes clear this is a day-quality lookup for a native, and it says the natal Moon comes from `birth` or `janmaRashi`. There is no explicit when-to-use versus the closely related chandrashtama, chandrashtama_day or tara_bala tools, so the agent must infer routing from the names.

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