get_graha_positions

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 describes the output and parameters but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects or rate limits. For a read-only positional tool, this is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 a single packed sentence that efficiently conveys all key information: tool purpose, output attributes, and parameter details. It is concise but could benefit from sentence breaks for readability.

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 complexity (six parameters, specific output), the description is remarkably complete. It lists output fields, parameter formats, defaults, and even hints at use for gochara. Since an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on behavior and context.

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 adds full meaning to all parameters: date format, city defaults, ayanamsa options with defaults, and the fallback to latitude/longitude/timezone. This goes beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 tool provides sidereal positions of all nine grahas at sunrise for a given date, listing specific attributes like longitude, rasi, nakshatra, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_panchangam or get_gochara by focusing exclusively on graha positions.

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 usage for transit (gochara) groundwork, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, missing the chance to differentiate from siblings like get_gochara.

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