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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds real context beyond that: the report is A4, output is PDF/HTML, each day is scored by sunrise Panchang factors, and ranked days include Abhijit Muhurat plus scoring rationale. It stops short of stating pagination or repeat-invocation cost behavior.

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 deliverable, then methodology in one dense sentence; the cost warning is clearly appended. Some engine detail (Panchang limbs, author names) is heavier than an agent strictly needs, and the trailing activity list is cut off mid-sentence.

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 description covers purpose, methodology and cost adequately. But for a premium 13-parameter tool it leaves the whitelabel/branding and result-limiting parameters entirely to the schema, so an agent must open the schema to invoke confidently.

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 31% across 13 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate, but it only restates `activity` (already enumerated in the schema) and alludes to the search window. topN, ayanamsa, timezoneOffset, precision, fields and the whole whitelabel object are left to the schema alone.

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?

Specific verb ('Render') plus resource ('standard A4 report of the most auspicious dates') and a clear scope (activity over a search window). It distinguishes itself from other report siblings by naming the muhurta subject and the shared /vedic/muhurat/* engine, though it does not explicitly contrast with the other report generators.

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 is implied by the 'Reports' group and the premium-cost warning ('Confirm with user before invoking'), which is genuinely useful gating advice. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. the raw muhurat endpoint or reports_generate).

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