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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the result is advisory only and modern medical scheduling takes precedence, plus the note that surgery has inverted polarity versus benefic activities. Return format and cost are left to the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by the polarity caveat, then metadata tags. No wasted sentences, though the [Group]/[Cost] block is metadata rather than descriptive content.

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 no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is any coverage of the 10 input parameters, particularly the required date-window and location inputs, so the definition is only minimally complete 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 coverage is only 40% across 10 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It says nothing about search_window_start (the sole required param), its date format, the latitude/longitude inputs, ayanamsa selection, or topN, all of which matter for a window scanner.

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) and the exact domain (elective surgery), which separates it from the many sibling muhurat tools (marriage, travel, business_start, etc.). An agent can tell instantly it produces timing windows, not a chart or report.

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 domain ('elective surgery') implies when to use it, but no sibling alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. The polarity rules (Tue/Sat preferred, Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri avoided) describe internal logic rather than selection guidance, leaving the agent to infer that this is the surgery-specific muhurat tool among the dozen siblings.

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