Firdaria

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already convey safety. The description adds that it calculates periods based on sect and planet order, and provides an example request body. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any behavioral traits that annotations don't already cover.

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 description is concise: one sentence, example, and metadata (group, cost). It front-loads the essential purpose. However, it could be more structured by adding parameter explanations or a brief on expected output.

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 11 parameters, rich annotations, no output schema, and a complex domain, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the calculated result contains, how to interpret firdaria periods, or differentiate from the many similar time-lord siblings. The example request does not compensate for missing contextual details.

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 0% – no parameter descriptions exist in the input schema. The description only includes an example request body without explaining the meaning or required format of parameters like 'cosmogram', 'ayanamsaId', etc. The example helps but does not compensate for the lack of semantic documentation for all 11 parameters.

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 clearly states the specific function: 'Calculate Firdaria planetary periods — the traditional Persian time-lord system based on sect and planet order.' This distinguishes it from other time-lord tools among siblings (e.g., profections, dashas) by naming the specific tradition and basis.

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 description implies usage for calculated firdaria periods but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative time-lord systems like profections or dashas. The group and cost info is present but does not help choose between siblings.

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