vedika_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuinely useful non-schema context: a per-call cost of $0.016–0.020, which lets an agent budget. It does not disclose response shape, error behavior, rate limits, or that results are location/time-dependent in any practical sense, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a 6-parameter computational tool.

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 compact glossary of enum values with the domain stated up front and cost last — no filler sentences. The telegraphic 'X = Y' fragments are terse but efficient for an enum glossary; only the unexplained pairing of Yoga and Period entries slightly blurs it.

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 6-parameter, 5-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what each mode returns conceptually but says nothing about output structure, units, or result cardinality. Required coordinate/time inputs and the polar-latitude rejection live only in the schema, so the description is adequate but leaves an agent guessing at 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for the `type` enum by defining most values (ritu, solstice, anandadi-yoga, gowri nalla neram, disha shool, planet transit, chandrashtama), though 'chandrashtama-periods' is left undefined and 'inauspicious-yoga' is only implied by the paired gloss. `ayanamsa` and the coordinate/time parameters are left entirely to the 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?

The opening sentence names the domain (Vedic calendar calculations) and the rest of the description enumerates and defines each of the calculation modes the `type` enum selects, so an agent can map a request to a mode. However, it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like vedika_panchang or vedika_muhurta, which plausibly cover overlapping material.

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 per-type glosses imply when each mode is appropriate (e.g., 'Chandrashtama = ... avoid important work'), which is useful. But there is no explicit routing guidance — nothing says when to use this versus vedika_panchang, vedika_muhurta, or vedika_daily_bundle, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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