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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the burden is light — and the description still adds meaningful context: the counterintuitive Tue/Sat preference for 'cutting' work, the advisory-only framing with medical scheduling taking precedence, and the 50-credit Tier 3 cost. The polarity rule is exactly the kind of behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences carry the core meaning with no filler, followed by a compact metadata block (group, endpoint, required, cost). Efficient, though the bracketed metadata is somewhat boilerplate rather than descriptive prose.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies purpose and the advisory caveat, but for a geo-dependent muhurat tool it is silent on coordinate/timezone expectations and on the non-obvious equator default.

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, and the description contributes nothing about them beyond restating the single required 'search_window_start' (already enforced by the schema). Key parameters such as latitude/longitude (defaulting to 0, i.e. the equator/Atlantic), topN, ayanamsaId, and search_window_end are left unexplained.

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 elective surgery') that cleanly distinguishes this tool from the many sibling muhurat scanners (marriage, travel, property, business). The added note that polarity is inverted relative to benefic activities makes the tool's output semantics unambiguous.

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 'inverted polarity vs benefic activities' remark implicitly steers the agent toward the other muhurat_* tools for benefic events, and the advisory caveat bounds expectations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative for non-surgical timing queries.

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