get_graha_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the unusual behavior of rasi_until being an IST calendar date regardless of city, and that it is not an exact instant. It also states the tool operates at sunrise and lists ayanamsa options, providing useful context beyond the schema. It does not mention potential errors or limitations, but for a read-only computation tool this is adequate.

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 efficient, with a single well-organized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then lists output details and parameter specifications. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the structure flows logically from what to output to how to call it. No filler or redundancy.

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 complexity of nine grahas with multiple data points and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all parameters, the key behavioral quirk (rasi_until), and the output scope. An agent can call this tool correctly without needing additional clarification, and the output schema handles return structure. Nothing essential is missing.

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 fully compensate. It explicitly explains every parameter: date format (YYYY-MM-DD), city as name or coordinates, timezone derived if omitted (implying timezone param), and ayanamsa with valid options and default. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the raw schema, leaving no ambiguity about parameter meanings or formats.

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 clear, specific statement: 'Sidereal positions of all nine grahas' at sunrise of the given date, listing exactly what is returned (longitude, rasi, nakshatra, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gochara or get_panchangam by focusing on graha positions and transit groundwork, so an agent can readily identify its purpose.

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 provides context for when to use the tool by noting it is 'transit/gochara groundwork,' hinting it is a building block for gochara analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., get_gochara for actual gochara predictions), so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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