get_combustion_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses accuracy tolerances, a maximum date range of 366 days, and timezone derivation behavior when latitude/longitude are passed. It does not explicitly describe side effects or behavior when the max range is exceeded, but the overall behavioral profile is well covered.

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 every sentence earns its place: it defines the resource, clarifies the astronomical criterion and accuracy, states the date-range limit, and summarizes arguments. The core purpose is front-loaded and the helper detail is packed into a compact Args section.

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's 7 parameters, optional coordinate-based input, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers inputs, defaults, limits, accuracy, and the city-or-coordinates alternative. Minor omitted details such as exact error behavior for oversized ranges are not essential for selecting and calling the tool 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%, but the description compensates by explaining all relevant parameters: start_date/end_date format, city name or latitude+longitude, timezone derivation, and optional planets subset with default. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns Asta... and Udaya... periods for the five classical planets... over a date range for a given city.' It defines Asta and Udaya and explicitly contrasts with BPHS Maudhya thresholds, so it distinguishes itself from generic panchangam or per-day combustion-flag 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 clearly positions this as the Drik Panchang sky-visibility Asta/Udaya calendar over a date range for a city, and explicitly states it is not the fixed BPHS elongation Maudhya thresholds used in per-day combustion flags. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool to use for that per-day case, so the when-not guidance is present but not fully concrete.

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