Panchang: Hora

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in annotations – the cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the endpoint – but says nothing about output shape, timezone assumptions, or what happens with optional parameters.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded, and the bracket metadata is compact and scannable. The metadata lines are boilerplate that repeat schema info, but they do not bloat the definition.

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 13 parameters, low schema coverage, and several sibling tools computing planetary hours, the definition should explain which optional astrological settings matter and how this differs from the other planetary-hour tools. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the input-side and differentiation gaps are large.

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 23% across 13 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It merely restates the four required fields already marked required in the schema and never explains ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone, or whether those even affect a hora calculation.

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 and output: 24 planetary hours in Chaldean order, plus sunrise/sunset and the day ruler. That is clear, but it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as astroway_calendar_planetary_hours or astroway_horary_planetary_hours, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why to pick the Vedic Panchang variant.

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, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The only context is a required-parameter list and a cost tier, which tells the agent how to call it but not when to choose it.

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