get_rashi_ingresses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and meets it: sidereal/ayanamsa-configurable coordinates, retrograde ingresses included, planets without sign changes omitted, exit timestamps may fall outside the requested range, and timestamps are in UTC. This is detailed and directly useful to an agent.

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 every sentence earns its place: core function, domain definition, behavioral caveats, exclusions, range limit, and parameter guidance. The Saturn example is illustrative rather than padding, and the structure front-loads the primary purpose.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description covers purpose, input semantics, supported values, edge cases, timezone, entry fields, and range limits. The output schema handles the return shape, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 compensates fully: start_date and end_date are given the YYYY-MM-DD format, planets is optional with a default of all eight, and ayanamsa lists its allowed values and default. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema field names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all rashi (sign) ingress events for the classical planets over a date range.' It defines the domain term, lists supported planets, states the Moon exclusion, and clearly distinguishes ingress-event data from the sibling get_gochara/get_graha_positions 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 gives clear usage context: it is the foundational event for gochara period boundaries, supports a date range up to 366 days, accepts an optional planet subset, and explains why Moon is excluded. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'when not to use this tool', but the scope and constraints are evident.

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