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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: the billing cost (50 credits, Tier 3) and the underlying rule basis, which tells the agent this is a heavier, rule-driven computation rather than a generic scan.

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 sentences plus bracketed metadata, front-loaded with the purpose before the nakshatra detail. The nakshatra enumeration is long but carries real domain content rather than filler.

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 values need not be described, and the single required param is patterned in the schema. But for a 10-parameter, location-sensitive electional tool, the description omits any guidance on supplying coordinates/timezone (which default to 0) or using topN/ayanamsa, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate but adds nothing about search_window_start/end, topN, ayanamsa selection, or the latitude/longitude/timezoneOffset inputs that a muhurat calculation depends on. The nakshatra list describes output content, not parameter meaning.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('auspicious-window scanner for legal or sacramental name change') and distinguishes itself from the closest sibling (naming_ceremony) by noting it uses 'Namkaran-derived rules with widened tithi set'. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool, so an agent must infer the boundary from the parenthetical.

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 use case ('legal or sacramental name change') is implied, and the widened-tithi-set note hints at when this differs from the Namkaran ceremony tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no sibling is named as an alternative, leaving the agent to infer the choice among the twelve muhurat siblings.

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