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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain behavioral rules (preferred nakshatras, avoided weekdays) and a credit cost, but says nothing about pagination or output volume, which matters for a scanner returning topN candidates.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the domain filter comes first. 'Same scoring shape' is terse to the point of being cryptic without a reference tool named, which is the only real cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the nakshatra/weekday rules give real domain content. However, for a 10-parameter, date-window-driven scanner with 40% schema coverage, the description leaves key invocation details unaddressed.

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 only 40% across 10 parameters, and the description mentions no parameter at all — not the required search_window_start, not the topN cap, not ayanamsa or timezoneOffset. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Auspicious-window scanner for starting a business / new venture'), which is enough to separate it from the many other muhurat siblings by domain. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the business/new-venture scope is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite a dense sibling set (general_auspicious, investment, property_purchase, etc.). The agent is left to infer that 'business start' is the selection criterion.

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