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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: the free view only covers the next 3 months, implying a paid tier beyond that. It omits result count, pagination, and any auth/quota details, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the free-tier constraint. Every clause carries information.

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 at least sketch the return shape; it says 'dates AND times' but not how many results or how they are structured. It also never tells the agent that karma values must come from muhurat_karma_list. The free/paid coverage boundary is the one substantive completeness contribution.

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 8 parameters, including the karma work ids and the unknown-birth-time convention (12:00), are already documented in the schema. The description only gestures at 'chosen work' and 'birth chart' without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.

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 (auspicious dates and times) with a clear qualifier: personalised to the birth chart and scoped to a chosen work. An agent can distinguish it from narrower siblings like vivah_muhurat or child_birth_muhurat because the work type is passed in via karma. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of 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?

The description implies the use case (choosing a work and getting dates) but gives no when-to-use conditions, no exclusions, and does not point to muhurat_karma_list for valid karma ids or explain when a sibling like vivah_muhurat is preferable. Only the free-tier scope hint is present.

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