get_graha_yuddha

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it explains the 1° orb rule, latitude-based victor determination, exempt planets, output fields, UTC times, and the maximum date range. It does not discuss error behavior or boundary inclusivity, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the main result, followed by a compact technical definition, summary of returned data, and argument details. It is longer than minimal, but every sentence carries meaningful information needed to correctly understand and invoke the tool.

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?

The description covers the concept, calculation rules, output fields, parameter formats, defaults, and a hard constraint on date range. It does not address error handling or whether input dates are inclusive, but for a read-only calculation tool this is a fairly complete picture.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only documentation for parameters. It fully compensates by specifying start_date and end_date formats as YYYY-MM-DD, giving a concrete example for the optional planets subset, and explaining the default behavior of all five planets producing 10 pair combinations.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns Graha Yuddha (planetary war) periods in a date range.' It also defines the phenomenon with enough precision that the tool is immediately distinguishable from sibling astrology calculators, even without an explicit contrast.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever Graha Yuddha periods are requested, and it provides useful constraints like a 366-day maximum range and optional planet filtering. However, it never names an alternative or states when not to use it, despite related siblings such as get_graha_positions existing.

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