vedika_panchang

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It creditably discloses the per-call cost ($0.012), the location fallback to Delhi, and the shape of the return (5 limbs plus sunrise/sunset/moonrise). It says nothing about authentication, error behavior, caching, or precision/accuracy caveats for the computed values.

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 purpose and output contents are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with operational details (defaults, cost) trailing. There is no filler; every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work by naming what comes back and stating defaults and cost. Minor gaps remain around response structure (e.g., whether values are names or numbers) and whether partial results occur when element is set, but nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, making a baseline of 3 appropriate. The description does add one piece of meaning beyond the schema, framing the time parameter as useful for eclipse timings and specific muhurta, but it does not explain the element enum's effect on the response.

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 resource ('Hindu calendar (Panchang)') with an explicit scope ('today or a specific date/time') and enumerates the five returned limbs, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near siblings such as vedika_calendar or vedika_muhurta, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for today or a specific date/time' and the defaults for date/time/location are spelled out, giving usable calling context. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer vedika_calendar or vedika_muhurta instead, and no exclusions.

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