Panchang: Chandrashtama for a person

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is the cost (20 credits, Tier 2), the endpoint, and the output shape note that each span keeps its full start and end. That pricing/result-granularity context is exactly what the annotations cannot convey; it only lacks notes on error cases or empty-result behavior.

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?

One dense sentence states the computation, the range, and the natal-Moon source, followed by a compact bracketed block for group, endpoint, required field, and cost. No filler, and the key semantic is front-loaded.

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 nine parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential decision points: what the spans mean, the range limits, the cost, and how to provide the natal Moon. Minor gaps remain around the `ayanamsa`/`timezone` interplay and the `janmaNakshatra` alternative, both of which the schema partially documents.

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 78%, so the schema handles most parameters, but the description still adds meaning by stating the days bounds explicitly and, more importantly, explaining that the natal Moon sign is derived either from `birth` or supplied directly via `janmaRashi`. It leaves `janmaNakshatra` and the ayanamsa/timezone choices to 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?

States a specific astronomical event ('Moon transits the 8th sign from the natal Moon sign') plus the range semantics (days, 1-366, from date), which is far more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling astroway_vedic_panchang_chandrashtama_day, 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?

The phrase 'Natal Moon from `birth` or `janmaRashi`' gives useful input-selection guidance for the two mutually exclusive ways to supply the natal Moon. There is no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use framing and no mention of the sibling day-level variant, so an agent must infer that this tool is the multi-day/range version.

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