Panchang: Disha Shool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the POST endpoint, the required parameter, and a 5-credit cost tier - useful for budget-aware planning. It doesn't discuss failure modes for a malformed date, but the schema pattern covers that.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the inline weekday table, then bracketed metadata lines for group, endpoint, required param and cost. Every element is scannable and none of it repeats the schema verbatim.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, the description is essentially complete: what it returns, what input matters, and what it costs. The only soft spot is the vaguely named 'traditional remedy item', whose exact shape is left to the output schema, which is acceptable here.

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% and already explains that the weekday decides the direction, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by supplying the actual weekday-to-direction mapping and noting only the weekday matters, giving meaning the schema leaves implicit and reducing the chance of the agent sending unnecessary time or location data.

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 (Disha Shool direction for a journey) plus the exact return contents (avoided direction, remedy item, week table). An agent can distinguish this from generic panchang siblings like panchang_full or rahu_kaal without inspecting the schema.

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 clause 'Only the weekday is used' tells the agent the date need not be exact beyond its weekday, which implies appropriate usage. However, it never says when to pick this over a broader panchang tool or notes any exclusions, so routing relies on the agent's own inference.

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