Panchang — Karana

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cost tier and Vedic group but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very short and includes essential elements: definition, group, cost, and a concrete example. No redundant information, but could be slightly more structured with a clear purpose statement.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return format, the meaning of optional parameters, or how the tool behaves. The example only covers a subset.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It only provides an example with 5 of 11 parameters and no explanation of their meaning (e.g., houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId). The example helps but does not define parameter semantics.

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 defines karana as 'half-tithi' and lists movable and fixed types, clearly indicating the tool's focus. The title 'Panchang — Karana' adds context. However, it does not explicitly state 'retrieves the current karana' or position it relative to siblings like vedic_panchang_tithi.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over the many sibling panchang tools (e.g., tithi, yoga, nakshatra_of_day). The example shows required parameters but lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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