get_panchanga_shuddhi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the complete verdict set, per-limb quality values, the exact rules for each panchanga limb, the reason per limb, and the important fact that values are taken at sunrise. This is detailed, transparent behavior disclosure beyond the schema.

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 core purpose, then provides the output structure, followed by compact rule summaries and argument formats. Despite its length, every sentence contributes necessary semantic or behavioral content; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 definition is largely complete: it explains the output verdicts, limb-level quality values, all relevant rules, and most parameters, and the output schema covers return-value structure. Remaining gaps are the undocumented timezone parameter and the lack of explicit guidance on choosing between the available astronomical systems, which keep it from being fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates for most parameters: date format, city name or latitude/longitude, and the system values ('drik|surya_siddhanta|vakya') with its default are all explained. It does not describe the timezone parameter at all, so it is not fully complete.

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 identifies the tool as a 'five-limb purity assessment for any date' and specifies the exact verdict scale and per-limb breakdown. It is clear about the resource and purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as get_panchangam or find_muhurta, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'purity assessment for any date' implies when this tool would be relevant, and the detailed shuddha/ashuddha rules suggest a muhurta-suitability use case. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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