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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: cost (50 credits, Tier 3), the endpoint, the required parameter, and the rule derivation. It stops short of describing result shape or window-size constraints.

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 purpose sentence followed by compact bracketed metadata; nothing is padded. The nakshatra list is long but is domain content the agent may need, not 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and cost/required/endpoint are present. The main gap is the absence of any disambiguation from the near-identical naming_ceremony tool and no note on how a narrow search window affects results, which matters for a 10-parameter scanner.

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%, and the description barely compensates: it only restates that search_window_start is required, which the schema's required array already conveys. Latitude, longitude, topN, search_window_end and ayanamsaId remain undocumented in both places, so an agent gets little help on the geolocation/timezone inputs this scanner needs.

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: an auspicious-window scanner for name change, with the rule basis (Namkaran-derived, widened tithi set) called out. However it does not distinguish itself from the very close sibling astroway_vedic_muhurat_naming_ceremony, and the 'Namkaran-derived' phrasing actually blurs that boundary rather than sharpening it.

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 phrase 'for legal or sacramental name change' implies the use case, and the widened tithi set hints at scope. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs the naming_ceremony sibling, no statement of exclusions, and no guidance on choosing among the ~12 muhurat siblings.

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