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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: darshan timings are unverified and should be confirmed with the temple, and VIP darshan requires a team request rather than being self-service. That is real operational caveat information not present in the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then caveats. The opening sentence is slightly awkward and fragments a few clauses ('place, facilities, the temple's own listed hours...'), but almost every sentence carries distinct information with minimal waste.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the description still sketches what comes back. Two optional parameters are fully schema-documented, and the verification and VIP caveats cover the main behavioral risk. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from being complete.

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%, with both 'limit' (1-20, default 10) and 'query' (temple name or place, with examples) documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior or matching semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource (temples listed for darshan and puja) and enumerates the returned facets: place, facilities, temple-listed hours, and bookable pujas. The verb is implicit ('lists') rather than stated as 'search' or 'list', and it never names search_pujas as the sibling it differs from, so differentiation is only partly achieved by implication.

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?

'It books nothing' and 'VIP darshan is arranged by the DharmikVibes team on request' implicitly scope the tool as discovery-only, which nudges an agent away from expecting booking behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to search_pujas or the other siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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