find_tarabalam_days

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the per-day tara names, the good_for_all_dates behavior, the chandra position/verdict values (good | puja | bad), and the rule that good_for_all requires both checks to pass. It does not cover every edge case or validation behavior, but it is substantially transparent.

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 dense but front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then outputs, then customization, then parameter details. The parameter section is a long run-on sentence, but every part carries necessary information for a 10-parameter tool, so no sentence is wasted.

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 high parameter count, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, behavior, return concepts, optional modes, and all parameter meanings. There is no critical missing context that would prevent an AI agent from invoking it correctly.

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%, yet the description manually documents every parameter with meaningful details: canonical nakshatra spellings, date format, days range and default, city versus latitude/longitude, system default, timezone IANA expectation, janma_rasis alignment, and chandra_mode variants. This fully compensates for the missing schema 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 specific purpose: finding upcoming auspicious days based on janma nakshatras (Tarabalam, optionally Chandrabalam). It also names the key outputs, making the tool's function easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly compare against or distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs Tarabalam/Chandrabalam-based auspicious day calculations, and it explains conditional usage such as passing janma_rasis to enable Chandrabalam checks. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus sibling tools or exclusions, but the domain-specific purpose provides reasonable contextual guidance.

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