Panchang: Tara Bala for a person

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the sunrise-to-sunrise day boundary, the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the endpoint, which matter for planning. It stops short of describing pagination, error conditions, or what happens when neither birth source is supplied.

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 followed by a compact metadata block (group, endpoint, required fields, cost); the output content is front-loaded and every clause carries information. The bracketed metadata is repetitive boilerplate but is scannable rather than wasteful.

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 need not be spelled out, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the optional-input story for an 11-parameter tool: what happens when neither `birth` nor `janmaNakshatra` is provided, and why latitude/longitude are mandatory (sunrise computation) is left to inference.

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 a middling 64%, and the description adds one useful cross-parameter rule — the birth star may come from either `birth` or `janmaNakshatra` — plus the sunrise-to-sunrise meaning of `date`. It repeats the `days` 1-31 bound already in the schema and says nothing about `ayanamsa`, `timezone` or `janmaRashi`, leaving the fallback behavior when no birth source is sent unexplained.

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 states a precise computation: for each day (sunrise to next sunrise) and each nakshatra in it, the count from the birth star plus the named tara, its quality and `favourable`. That is specific enough to separate it from sibling panchang tools like chandra_bala or tithi by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those alternatives.

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 implicit guidance on how to supply the birth star (`birth` or `janmaNakshatra`) and the valid `days` range, which tells the agent how to call it. However, there is no statement of when to choose this tool over the sibling bala/panchang tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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