get_daily_horas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: 12 daytime horas start at sunrise, 12 nighttime horas start at sunset, the first hora is ruled by the weekday lord, and timezone is derived if omitted. These are substantive algorithmic disclosures beyond what the schema shows. It stops short of edge cases such as invalid-city handling or polar-region behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Four sentences in roughly 70 words, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The algorithm details and the compact Args section each earn their place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a moderate-complexity tool with 6 parameters, the description covers purpose, parameter formats, defaults, and core behavior. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values. The only real gaps are explicit sibling differentiation and failure-mode behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it does completely. It documents the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), the city name with latitude/longitude alternative, the system enum values (drik|surya_siddhanta|vakya) with default, and the timezone-derivation behavior. Every parameter's semantics are covered in plain language.

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 24 planetary hours (horas) for a date and city as JSON.' The follow-on sentences explaining the daytime/nighttime split and the weekday-lord rule make the tool's function unmistakable and clearly distinct from astrological siblings like get_muhurta or get_panchangam.

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?

When to use the tool is inferable — any request for planetary hours on a given date — but the description never explicitly positions it against alternatives or states exclusion conditions. With 16 sibling tools in the same domain, explicit routing ('use get_muhurta for auspicious time selection') would strengthen this dimension.

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