vastu_declination

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it flags the estimate as coarse and unverified and explicitly says it is not field calibration. It omits specifics like the underlying model, output units, and whether date affects the returned value beyond what the schema hints.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the critical accuracy caveat; nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return — units (degrees east/west), sign convention, and precision — to fully prepare an agent. It covers the accuracy caveat but leaves the shape of the result undefined.

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 coverage is 100% — lat, lon, and the optional ISO date (with 'today' default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at the baseline.

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 ('look up') and resource ('coarse magnetic-declination reference estimate for India'), including the geographic scope. No sibling tool computes declination, so the agent can place it unambiguously among the vastu/vedika 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 implies the use case (compass correction) and warns against over-trusting the output, but never states when to call this versus alternatives or what prerequisites apply. Usage is inferable rather than explicitly directed.

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