Panchang: full

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: `endsAt` values are local ISO with offset, `moonrise`/`moonset` are the first occurrence after sunrise measured by disc centre and are null when no event falls within 30 hours. It omits the 20-credit cost and any note about the moment-vs-sunrise choice, which are the two remaining behavioral facts an agent would want.

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 is well front-loaded with the component inventory, but the remainder reads as prose notes on return fields — `endsAt`, `moonrise` nullability, the muhurta list — which is verbose given that an output schema already exists. Nothing is wasted outright, but the balance tilts toward duplicating structured data.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet roughly half the description is devoted to them while the genuinely confusing inputs (the moment/sunrise switch, the irrelevant-looking house-system and cosmogram flags) go unaddressed. For a 14-parameter, 20-credit endpoint, the selection-critical gaps remain.

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 only 29% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. It says nothing about `at` (moment vs sunrise), `cosmogram`, `zodiacType`, `houseSystem`, `city`, `name`, or `ayanamsaId`, all of which are unexplained in the schema and arguably vestigial for a Panchang call; only the date/lat/lon requirement is reflected, and that is already in the Required line.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Complete daily Panchang") and enumerates every constituent (Tithi, Vara, Karana, Yoga, Nakshatra, Choghadia, Rahu Kaal, Yamaganda, Gulika, Abhijit). That enumeration implicitly separates it from the single-element siblings (astroway_vedic_panchang_tithi, _karana, _yoga, _choghadia, _rahu_kaal), but it never says so explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

"Single call." hints that this replaces several element-by-element calls, which is useful routing guidance, but it never states when to prefer the granular siblings instead, nor any prerequisite about date/location scope. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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