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 domain-specific selection behavior (preferred nakshatras, avoid Sun/Tue/Sat) and cost, but does not disclose return shape, scoring logic, or timezone handling.

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?

Wait — reassessed: the body is two tight sentences with the key scoping front-loaded, and the group/cost tags are compact metadata. This is appropriately sized, so the score reflects efficient structure.

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 10-parameter electional scanner with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description establishes purpose and domain rules adequately. It is incomplete on parameter meaning and on how the scan window and location inputs affect results, leaving real gaps.

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 only 40%, yet the description adds no parameter-level detail (window dates, latitude/longitude, ayanamsa, precision, topN). The nakshatra list describes output criteria, not inputs, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 verb and resource ('auspicious-window scanner for major investments and financial commitments') and enumerates the covered activities (deposits, share/bond purchase, lending), which distinguishes it from sibling muhurat tools like property_purchase, business_start, or vehicle_purchase.

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 investment-specific scope clearly signals when to use this over the other muhurat siblings, and the nakshatra/day rules give operational context. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling alternative or state exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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