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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile, but the description adds real domain behavior beyond them: the Friday exclusion under Yatra prakarana and the preferred-nakshatra whitelist. It also discloses the 50-credit Tier-3 cost, which is not in the structured fields. Return format is left to the output schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Purpose leads, discriminating detail follows, and the metadata tags sit cleanly at the end. Nearly every clause carries information; the nakshatra list is long but is genuinely tool-relevant selection criteria.

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 and annotations covering safety, the return-value burden is off the description's plate. However, for a location-sensitive travel muhurat with 10 params, it never explains how the search window or the coordinates/timezone drive the scan, leaving a real gap against the low schema coverage.

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?

The description says nothing about any of the 10 parameters. With schema description coverage at only 40%, several parameters (latitude, longitude, topN, search_window_end, precision) are undocumented in the schema as well, and the description does not compensate. The domain rules it gives do not help an agent fill or interpret any input field.

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+resource ("auspicious-window scanner for multi-day journeys") and concretizes it with examples (pilgrimages, relocation travel). It explicitly differentiates itself from the short-travel sibling with "Stricter than short travel," so an agent can route between the two muhurat variants without opening a schema.

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 context is clear: apply this to multi-day journeys rather than short travel, and the qualifying cases (pilgrimage, relocation) are named. It stops short of explicitly pointing to astroway_vedic_muhurat_travel as the alternative for short trips, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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