get_rashi_ingresses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains inclusion of retrograde ingresses, exclusion of Moon due to frequency, omission of planets with no change, and UTC timestamps. It also mentions that exit times may fall outside the range.

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 paragraph, efficiently front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering key behaviors without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of 4 parameters, no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter details, constraints (max range), exclusions, and behavior for missing data. The output schema accounts for return values.

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 start_date/end_date format, planets optional subset (default all eight), and ayanamsa options with defaults. However, there is a discrepancy: description claims planets default all eight, but schema shows default null, which may confuse the agent.

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 the tool returns rashi ingress events for classical planets over a date range, explains what a rashi ingress is, mentions sidereal coordinates and retrograde ingresses, and specifies supported planets (excluding Moon). It is highly specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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 provides explicit usage context: for gochara period boundaries, max range of 366 days, and default settings. It also notes that planets with no sign change do not appear. Though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the tool's unique purpose is clear.

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