get_lagna_transitions

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

The description discloses what the tool returns (JSON with sign boundaries) and the relevant time period, which is essential for an astrology tool. It does not mention any destructive actions or permissions, which is fine for a read-only tool. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden well.

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 sentence followed by a concise list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficient in its wording, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 moderate complexity, 6 parameters, and existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for core functionality and parameter use. It could be more detailed about the return structure, but the output schema fills that gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying date format, city as name or lat/lon, timezone derivation, and system options. However, it does not individually describe latitude, longitude, and timezone parameters beyond the aggregate note, leaving some gaps.

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 it returns Ascendant (Lagna) sign boundaries for a date and city as JSON, specifying the time frame (sunrise to next sunrise). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rashi_ingresses or get_rasi_phalalu.

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 explains when to use the tool (to get rising sign boundaries) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. However, given the context of sibling tools, the usage is clear.

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