Panchang — Tithi

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds value by specifying the exact output (paksha, tithi name, % complete), which aligns with the annotations. No contradictions or hidden side effects are implied.

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, front-loading the core purpose in one sentence. The example request body is helpful, though the cost and group metadata could be considered extraneous. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured for quick scanning.

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 the tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters, which calculation details might require latitude/longitude/timezone, or what the output looks like beyond a brief mention. The example partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 description coverage, the description fails to explain any parameters beyond what is shown in the example. The example only includes date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude, leaving many other parameters (city, houseSystem, zodiacType, etc.) unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to understand how to fill all parameters correctly.

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 it returns the lunar day (tithi) along with paksha, tithi name, and percentage complete. The title 'Panchang — Tithi' effectively distinguishes it from other panchang tools like vedic_panchang_full. However, it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'Retrieves the tithi for a given date/time').

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 includes an example request body but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vedic_panchang_full or other vedic_panchang tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferable.

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