get_panchangam

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully burdens behavioral transparency. It extensively discloses traits: full list of return fields, new features in 1.9.0, parameter details (e.g., ayanamsa ignored for SS/Vakya), and fallback for location (lat/lon).

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 lengthy but front-loaded with the main purpose. It enumerates many fields, which adds value but reduces conciseness. Each sentence is informative, so it earns a 4 for being appropriately detailed without 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 7 parameters and complex output (with output schema), the description covers all parameters, return content, and new features. Output schema exists, but the description still justifies completeness by explaining the return value comprehensively.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains date format, city vs lat/lon, system and ayanamsa options with defaults, and that timezone is derived if omitted. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 a full Panchangam JSON for a date and city, listing many specific components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_panchangam_range (range) or get_daily_horas (different type).

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?

No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It implies usage for a single date and city, but does not discuss when to prefer this over get_panchangam_range or other related tools. Usage is implied but not guided.

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