get_panchangam

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 it well: it lists returned field groups, new fields, defaults, and the nuance that SS and Vakya accept ayanamsa but ignore it. This gives an unusually transparent picture of what the tool returns and how its calculation models behave.

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 front-loaded, starting with the core output definition before optional overrides and version notes. Some lists are long, but they are relevant given the breadth of the response. No filler sentences are present.

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?

For a complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers defaults, system variants, and optional overrides. It falls short by never mentioning supported-city constraints or clarifying city/coordinate/timezone semantics. The dateInputFormat/schema mismatch is a minor completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains system, ayanamsa, dateInputFormat, and latitude/longitude/timezone overrides. However, it does not define the accepted city form, coordinate/timezone formats, or how overrides interact with city lookup. It also mentions dateInputFormat even though that parameter is absent from the input schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns full Panchangam JSON for a date and city', then enumerates the main output groups such as Pancha Anga, sky events, and windows. The single-date/city qualifier makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_panchangam_range.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: a date and city for a full Panchangam. It also documents the system and ayanamsa options and optional coordinate/timezone overrides. However, it never explicitly names sibling tools as alternatives or states when not to use them.

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