Nakshatras

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already convey safety. Description adds value by detailing the output (nakshatra name, pada, deity, quality) and providing an example request. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise (two sentences plus example and metadata) and front-loaded. The example is helpful but could be better integrated. No unnecessary information.

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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify how optional parameters affect the calculation or the output format beyond listing fields. Usage context is thin for a complex Vedic astrology tool.

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?

With 0% schema parameter coverage, the description heavily relies on the example to hint at required params (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude) but fails to explain most of the 11 parameters (e.g., houseSystem, name, city, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram). No explicit parameter descriptions.

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 tool calculates Nakshatra for each planet using sidereal zodiac and lists return fields (name, pada, deity, quality). While it distinguishes from similar Vedic tools like 'vedic_panchang_nakshatra_of_day' by focusing on planets, it could be more explicit about being for planetary positions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other nakshatra-related tools). The description implies it's for planetary Nakshatra calculation but lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites.

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